Skip to main content
Internet Archive's 25th Anniversary Logo

Full text of "Humanitism : the scientific solution of the social problem"

See other formats







[All rights reserved ] 


MELLOS [2048] 

Ubis Boofe 




Those who to know the will of MELLOS strive, 
In these bold pages Truth divine will find ; 

How man his tragic Limbo may survive, 
To praise the bleeding Saviour of mankind. 

W. A. M. 



IN presenting this work to the public, no apology, I think, 
is necessary, for my conclusions do not interfere with the 
writings of other authorities on social questions. The 
material has been gathered from the ablest scientific 
authorities, but its method of application to the solution 
of the social problem is quite original. 

The constantly diverging trains of modern thought 
necessitate some new and enlarged method of restoring 
unity and harmony ; and I am baffled in all my efforts to 
find how this end can be attained through the theories of 
any one or more of the existing schools. In an inquiry 
which claims to be scientific, every sphere of human 
activity must be equitably adjusted, and the compre- 
hensive nature of the undertaking may thus be easily 
realised. Had I framed together the mass of material 
which I have collected, the dimensions of this volume 
would have been multiplied at least threefold, which 
would have placed it beyond the reach of many whom 
it is intended specially to benefit. Accordingly I have 
written the work in language as popular as can be made 
consistent with an inquiry of this kind, and have sacrificed 
much for the sake of brevity. This course, however, does 
not detract from the value of the work as a message 
to scientists ; for, although the matter may be well known 

viii PREFACE. 

to them, the inquiry points out the immense and largely 
untrodden field of scientific investigation connected with 
social problems. 

The necessity for a scientific standard of morality, 
wherein all our actions may be reduced to numbers which 
have a definite relation to our moral destiny, has long 
been felt, and to this feature of my inquiry I desire to 
draw special attention. 

W. A. M. 


THAT there [is a social problem to be solved -may be pro- 
nounced an unwarrantable assumption. Some maintain that 
what is, is right, and man is therefore just what he ought 
to be; that, barring the conduct of a few malcontents who 
should be peremptorily suppressed, there is nothing to dis- 
quiet social order and harmony. These convictions, however, 
are not now shared by a majority of fair-minded people. 

No end can be attained in the discussion of this question 
without first of all fixing man's moral destiny. This, again, 
maybe viewed from two standpoints: (i) the destiny fixed 
by the perpetuity of the forces through which we are now 
controlled, and (2) the destiny fixed by any proposed changes 
in these forces. It does not alter the proposition to say that 
we, as the architects of our own fortunes, are the controlling 
agency ; for, under all circumstances, every action or inaction 
begets one or more logical sequences. 

In this inquiry it is my purpose to show that the control- 
ling forces, or any modifications thereof which have been 
proposed, lead to the extinction of our race ; and if this be 
our moral destiny, there is no social problem to be solved. 
I should, perhaps, have said the extinction of civilisation, 
instead of that of our race, for the extinction of all humanity 
is conditioned by the universal spread of civilisation, not of 
existing forms only, but also of all civilisations that may arise 
under the sway of any one or more of the existing schools of 
sociology. There being, therefore, no social problem to be 
solved in the abstract category, the only recourse is to shift 
the forces into the category wherein the perpetuity of civilised 
peoples is involved. I shall show that civilisations are built 


upon abstract theories, which have removed them from the 
natural laws of their development, and that a scientific basis 
for all our actions and activities must be obtained. This end 
can only be reached through unity and harmony of thought 
an orderly restoration of the disorder and discord engen- 
dered by the ever-diverging schools of social metaphysics. 

In speaking of the method of solving the social problem as 
being scientific, and of the founding of morality on a scientific 
basis, it is necessary to understand precisely in what sense 
the word science is employed, what is meant by the scientific 
method of inquiry, and how far science can be utilised in the 
solution of social problems. 

In the same connection, the use of the word philosophy 
cannot be evaded, and the question may arise as to whether 
my inquiry is scientific or philosophic. Both science and 
philosophy have wide and narrow significations. It is the 
tendency of philosophy to move out of its restricted, dis- 
credited, abstract import, and make its sphere the unity and 
harmony of all the sciences, assigning to each its fitting place 
in relation to all the other branches, and to the totality of all 
natural phenomena. In this extended sense, there exists no 
such thing as philosophy or, rather, it is still in its infancy 
for such a scope would involve a solution of the social 
problem. In the following pages, I have embraced the whole 
sphere of human activity, by which my inquiry may be 
regarded as philosophic ; but I have evaded this designation 
for two reasons : (i) it would create the impression that my 
method is based on abstract theories, and (2) philosophy has 
not won the distinction of making a synthesis of all the 
sciences. However, in my analytical chapters (PART I.), I 
have used the word philosophy in the abstract sense ; and in 
the synthetical chapters (PART II.), I have used it in the sense 
in which I have termed my method as being scientific, believ- 
ing that all inquiries of this scope and character should be 
regarded as philosophic, and that scientific investigations 
should have a more restricted sphere. 

It now remains for me to show in what sense science and 
scientific methods may be employed in the solution of the 
social problem. In the first place, the conditions must all 


be taken into consideration, which has not been done in any 
of the investigations into the social problem ; for humanity 
and human destiny have been invariably eschewed, and these 
are the most important conditions. For the purposes of this 
inquiry, all knowledge may be derived from three sources, 
(i) Thinking or reasoning about ideas. (2) .Reasoning about 
external objects which we behold around us. (3) Analysing 
resolving into their component parts the said objects, ar- 
ranging and classifying them, and deducing laws, principles, 
relations, and theories therefrom. Setting aside the ideas 
embodied in the Oriental Theocracies, realism, or reasoning 
about sensuous objects, was the original method of acquiring 
knowledge, and we find it distinctly marked in the early 
Ionic philosophy ; or, it should be said that Thales, the first 
of this school, was a physicist rather than a philosopher, 
although, in deference to the writers of the history of philo- 
sophy, I have included this and similar schools in my review. 
This method of acquiring knowledge, namely, by ordinary 
observation of sensuous objects and these may also be the 
rudiments of classification may, however, be eliminated, for 
it is the basis of science, and the Ionic physicists were 
scientists without a science. In its restricted sense, philo- 
sophy is therefore confined to thinking or reasoning about 
ideas, although it would be more correct to say that this is 
the basis, for our ideas bear some relation to sensuous objects. 
In philosophy, the basis is the idea ; in science, the basis is 
the object from which we obtain the idea. Science implies 
knowledge derived from observation of and experimentation 
with concrete or sensuous objects, including their classification, 
laws, relations, &c. Any source of knowledge may be received 
into the scientific category when it is placed upon an experi- 
mental basis. A scientific truth is obtained when all the con- 
ditions affecting the experiment have been observed, so that 
a repetition always leads to the same results ; but strong 
evidence of truth may be predicated before this stage of per- 
fection is reached, there being sometimes flaws in the conduct- 
ing of experiments, due to unheeded accidents, or the lack of 
skill and caution. The scientist cannot ignore the theories 
of ideas promulgated by the abstract thinkers ; for, holding 


that knowledge is derived from experience, he must submit 
that ideas cannot transcend this limit cannot attain theories 
which are not based on experience so that all things which 
fall within this range may belong to the domain of science in 
the widest sense of the word. The existence of conditions 
beyond the domain of experience, if they variously affected 
the experiment, would be death to all scientific inquiry. 

It may be urged, however, that the scientist cannot reduce 
all social phenomena to an experimental basis, that sociology 
involves history, which is not susceptible of experimental 
inquiry. This objection is unfounded, for history is an ex- 
periment in constant operation, and if the past has not led 
to results desired, he may suggest another basis, and show that 
history, like all other experiments, will repeat itself under 
the same conditions. He is permitted to apply the same 
logical methods to history as to other experimental inquiries. 
If it be, for example, a religious question, he may investigate 
the origin and development of the thousand and one religions 
of existing tribes, and compare them with those of civilised 
nations, inquiring at the same time into the origin and de- 
velopment of the languages, the social and political ideas, 
customs, traditions, ceremonies, the development of the 
bodily structures as obtained from geological or pre-historic 
records, &c. If the inquiry be a given historical incident, 
he may examine if the historian has delineated a violation 
of any natural laws, and, if so, whether the cause appears to 
be wilful misrepresentation or blind adherence to the super- 
stitions of the age. The time is past when history is regarded 
as a dry record of battles and royal prerogatives, and the 
scientist has become the chief functionary in historical inquiry. 

Although my dependence is mainly upon the physical 
sciences, yet I have not neglected mathematical methods, 
for in them is forcibly exemplified how unity and harmony 
of thought can be attained. The axioms appeal to every 
rational mind, and many unerring truths have been derived 
therefrom. If I have erred in naming my social assumptions 
axioms, my apology is, that if mathematical axioms became a 
party question, they would not appeal to us all as self-evident 
truths. In arithmetic, however, such unity and harmony do 


not exist, and this exception only proves that the mathe- 
matician and the scientist unite in striving after simplicity 
of method, and in forcing principles to their logical conclu- 
sions. The radix of our arithmetical system is 10, and many 
mathematicians contend that it should be 12; or, rather, 
that two new numbers should be inserted between 9 and 
10 (12), making in all 12 digits instead of 10 ; and it has even 
been suggested that some power of 2 should be the radix. 
The reason why 10 is regarded as a false radix is because it has 
(besides unity) only two integral divisions, while 12 has four. 
It is plain that this question is capable of experimental 
inquiry, and in this sense it is scientific. The necessity for 
unity and harmony of thought, as well as simplicity of calcu- 
lation, is aptly instanced by the metric system although it is 
still imperfect all measures of length, area, capacity, and 
weight being based on the length of a quadrant of the 
meridian measured between the equator and the pole, and 
they are all decimally related to each other. It thus appears 
that there are logical conclusions which enforce harmony of 
thought ; and the only obstacle to their general adoption is 
(in the above instances) the lack of (mathematical) knowledge 
in the electorate. In my inquiry into the social problem, I 
have followed both of these mathematical methods, namely : 
(i) the founding of axioms, and (2) the forcing of scientific 
truths to their logical conclusions. 

Another method in the attainment of unity and harmony 
consists in the solution of dualisms. In philosophy, for 
example, we have mind arrayed against matter; in meta- 
physics, the human soul opposes lower animal life, and in 
theology good and evil abound. Besides these, there are 
dualisms which have not yet been discovered, and my inquiry 
will consist largely in the discovery and solution of dualisms. 
There is an ultimate dualism which embraces all the interior 
and inferior ones, and a solution of the former involves a 
settlement of all the others. 

In the discussion of some of the abstract theories, I have 
placed little reliance upon positive methods of proof, but have 
pointed out the weaknesses by showing how the authorities 
in the various schools contradict and abuse each other, thus 


necessitating a new and enlarged basis of inquiry ; while in 
other instances I have cut short the negative proofs, and 
have depended mainly upon positive methods of demon- 

My definition of the character of the scientist is deduced 
from a principle laid down by the first great scientist, 
Aristotle, who said that the object of inquiry into the nature 
of virtue was not to know what virtue was, but to be virtuous. 
In like manner, the true scientist does not inquire into other 
objects for the mere curiosity of knowing, but for the purpose 
of improving his conduct and that of his fellows a man who 
has also the moral courage to bring all his feelings, thoughts, 
and actions in subordination to truth, despite the derision of 
men who are under the restraint of other forces. 

The name of my system of social science, Humanitism, 
I have chosen for several reasons. The subject is one in 
which humanity stands out supreme, not only when referred 
to my social sympathies, my faith, and my hopes, but also on 
the ground of natural law. It is the ascendant force in our 
social system the most potent agency in the social experi- 
ment. Other schools parade their practicality because they 
deal with man as he is. On this basis, it may be legitimately 
demanded that he be kept as he is and not be ' permitted to 
grow worse. In Humanitism, he is taken as he is and led to 
what he ought to be a condition of ever-increasing health 
and strength, moral, intellectual, and physical, as well as ever- 
increasing virtue and happiness. 


part E. 





Leading maxims of distinguished philosophers The nine epochs of 
ancient philosophy The philosophy of Realism The theory of 
Design The subjective basis of the Sophists Socrates' philo- 
sophy of objective thought The Cynics The Idealism of 
Plato The scientific philosophy of Aristotle The Materialism 
of the Stoics The Happiness theory of Epicurus The evolution 
of philosophy into Scepticism and Neo-Platonism Failure of 
ancient philosophy and its transition into Christianity- 1 Scholas- 
ticism The eleven epochs of modern philosophy The philo- 
sophy of Descartes and Spinoza and the origin of modern 
Realism and Idealism The Realism of Locke developed into 
extremes of Sensationalism by the French philosophers The 
monads of Leibnitz The pure Idealism of Berkeley The 
Idealism of Kant, Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel, and the positive 
philosophy of Herbert Utilitarianism Spencer's evolutionary 
philosophy The failure of modern philosophy . . . 1-22 



Is religion an abstraction ? Various opinions regarding the origin 
of religions Scientific inquiry traces all religions to ancestor- 
worship Difference between religion and philosophy The 
various materials from which Christianity was fashioned, and 
its instrumentality in solving the philosophic dualism Philo- 
sophy in modern Christianity The weaknesses of philosophy 
and religion measured by the positive method of thinking The 
first axiom Relation between structure and function . . 23-35 





Characterised by abstractions and negations Civilisations controlled 
by economicism Ancient and mediaeval economics The Mer- 
cantile System The economic and the philosophic dualism as 
an identical law Mercantilism versus Physiocratism, or trade 
versus agriculture as the basis of national prosperity The Free- 
trade era Malthusianism Neo-Malthusianism Ricardo's 
wage-fund theory and its opponents The Protectionists 
Scientific Socialism Individualism Christian Socialism 
Georgism The historico-ethical school Jevons, Mill, and 
Cairnes The happiness basis and the transition stage of 
political economy False methods of inquiry Scarcity as the 
basis of economic wealth Economics tested by its assumptions 
Monopoly Confusion and failure of the orthodox school , 36-66 



The population question as the root of the social problem" 
Malthusians and Anti-Malthusians Effects of encouraging 
population The question based upon an axiom Weaknesses 
of Malthusian theories The area of land drawn on for food 
depends upon what we eat Is man a carnivorous animal ? 
Can nutriment be drawn from inorganic nature? Scientific, 
economic, and moral vegetarians Is chemistry or biology the 
scientific basis of dietetics ? Is man a cooking animal ? 
Effects of cooking foods Standard rations Chemical com- 
position of foods Scientists' and soldiers' rations Area of 
land required to support an adult Area required to support 
the population of the United Kingdom: (i) on a vegetarian 
diet, (2) on a meat diet, and (3) on a mixed diet Area re- 
quired to support an adult on milk and cheese Our population 
could be supported on our waste area Quantity of food im- 
ported Science versus economicism Effects of domestication 
of plants and animals Quantity of meat produced per acre 
The scientist is neither a Malthusian nor an Anti-Malthusian 
Causes of meat eating and alcohol drinking Diseases in 
meat Can our poor classes benefit by adopting a vegetarian 
diet? 67-104 





Axiomatic justice Weaknesses of existing ideas of rights " Divine 
rights " Subduing land monopoly as the remedy for all mo- 
nopolies Monopoly of the human conscience Origin and 
development of monopoly Feudalism Chattel, serf, and eco- 
nomic slavery The Roman and the Teutonic character 
Differences between English and Continental feudalism 
Mediaeval and modern militaryism Decay of feudal and Church 
sovereignty Who are the absolute owners of the land ? 
Abolishing landlordism by increasing the number of landlords 
Rights derived from natural law Compensation fund for 
the monopolists Rights as a land question In our economics 
we are ruled by posterity, and in our morals by our ancestors 
Causes why people do not cultivate the area of laud required 
for their support Characteristics of our education Scientific 
basis of land tenure Land monopoly of the Church The 
theory of tithes Effects of Christianity .... 105-126 



Effects of economicism on agriculture Is civilisation governed by 
science or economic theories ? Ancient philosophers condemned 
economicism Temperature and comforts Human hardiness 
illustrated by Socrates and American pioneers Life in the 
wilderness, and how transformed by economic forces Pioneer 
politics Industrial collapses Origin of agricultural depres- 
sion Scientific and practical mistakes in agriculture Stock 
"booms " and crises Theories of soil fertility and exhaustion 
Domestic animals as restorers of fertility Manure fallacies 
exposed Can fertility be maintained by stock ? Stock must 
go Pedigreed and " scrub " stock Feeding domestic animals 
for gluttons Effects of overfeeding upon vitality Tendency 
of extinction of domestic animals Effects of economic agricul- 
ture upon plants Agricultural exhibitions and agricultural 
education Effects of subordinating vital laws to those of the 
physical world Causes of increase of food- supplies Effects of 

commercial fertilisers 127-145 


xviii CONTENTS. 




Weaknesses of the State Its abstract foundation Theories of the 
origin of the State Patriarchism Divine origin and character 
of the State Jewish, Greek, and Roman States The theory 
that "might is right" Theory of social contract The pro- 
phetic theory The theory of social impulse General character 
of ancient States What is the end of the State ? Conflicting 
views of philosophers Is the franchise a right or a privilege ? 
The lord paramount of the land is the owner of the crown 
and of the sacerdotal stole The rights of man Vested rights 
The State ruled by economicism Current political history 
State versus individual enterprise Socialism versus Georgism 
Evolutionary versus Revolutionary Socialism Weaknesses 
of Socialism and Individualism Can the State aid agriculture ? 
Our political parties Classification of governments Politi- 
cal education Are all States doomed to decay ? Powers of 
the State limited to the creating and destroying of monopolies 
The State as a lottery 146-169 



Importance of a scientific standard The false basis of the economic 
standard Both money and labour are false standards The 
basis of scientific wealth defined Sources of waste Scien- 
tific wealth has no economic value Money as the Jove of our 
idolatry The three persons in the economic godhead Our 
schools of "currency quacks" Economic standards not capable 
of definition The sources of value Requirements of money 

standards Table showing the fallacy of economic standards 

The aristocracy of labour Relation between land, labour, 
and money Economic values created by the destruction of 
scientific values Fallacy of encouraging both agriculture and 
commerce Money and labour as a measure of scarcity Fiat 
values Results of tinkering with standards Abstract and 
concrete values Gold as the most despotic of all the Gods 
A decimal system required 170-187 

CONTENTS. x i x 




Objective and subjective abstractions Historical evidence of 
Christianity Attributes to be possessed by scientific Deities 
Weaknesses of new religions Theism Comteanity 
Agnosticism Secularism Weaknesses of the religion of 
humanity Failure of the ideal basis of existence Religious 
subjectivity evolving into objectivity Capture of agriculture 
by economicism Economics must be based on biology 
Fallacy of the chemical basis of agriculture and dietetics 
Objective and subjective science Medicine not a science, 
but a form of alchemy Science must conquer agriculture, 
economics, philosophy, and theology Objective character of 
our education Home Rule not fundamentally Nationalistic, 
but Humanitistic Economic theories tested by their logical 
conclusions Fallacy of the Royal Agricultural Society's 
motto : " Practice with Science " Depopulation of our agri- - 
cultural districts Fallacy of the commercial basis of national 
prosperity Evils of peasant proprietorship War cannot be 
prevented by moral agencies The coming millenniums 
Fallacies of Individualism and Socialism Robbery of posterity 
as the source of our social troubles We must defend the 
dead or the prospective living Is man degenerating ? Eco- 
nomic happiness defined Basis of a scientific system of social 
philosophy . 188-209 

part . 




A scientific hypothesis begins where the interpretation of "science 
ends Our pre-organic planet The conditions of space Matter 
and force Different forms of force Pre-organic wealth and 
destiny Our organic world The wealth and destiny of or- 
ganic life Wealth -producing agencies Conditions of exist- 
ence Law precedes and governs life The epoch of lower 
animal life Distinctive feature of animal life The law of 
evolution The antiquity of our planet The struggle for exist- 



ence Scientific and abstract methods contrasted Subjective 
and objective impulses Man as the originator of dualisms 
Natural and supernatural agencies Material and moral 
agencies inseparable What natural laws is man permitted to 
escape owing to his supernatural character ? Solution of the 
dualism of man and nature How civilisation is to be measured 
Limited and unlimited evolution Definition of scientific 
wealth 213-223 



Importance of land as the basis of subsistence Wide and narrow 
significations of land The right to live carries a right of access 
to land The right to live destroys all monopoly, and trans- 
mutes economic rights into a figment The basis of scientific 
agriculture Pre-historic man Antiquity of man "Results of 
the discovery of fire and cookery Scientific and economic 
agriculture contrasted Economic labour as the curse of our 
race Abolition of the right to labour destroys all monopoly 
Scientific agriculture extinguishes trade Should man grow 
natural foods, or can he prepare unnatural foods ? The law of 
development identical in all forms of life Can man wear 
clothing ? Close relation between flesh-eating, clothes-wear- 
ing, alcohol-drinking, and food-cooking Has man evolved 
into a shame animal 1 Electric vitality Struggling scientifi- 
cally for existence The growing immorality of man . 224-234 



Scientific meaning of land Maximum and minimum elements of 
fertility vThe law of waste Further exposition of scientific 
wealth The mission of science Scientific conception of 
morality Immoralities of economic men Religion is related 
to virtue, not to morality The most moral man makes the 
best use of the largest area of land Our physio-ethic (moral) 
ratios 235-244 



Men can only hold land as executors for posterity Election and 
duties of State officers Classification of men according to tem- 
peraments Animal mechanics Liberty of the individual 



Classification of lands Countrifying 'the city, and citifying 
the country Social and individual contracts How to reward 
exertion without the use of money The chronop as a unit 
of value Abolition of all distinction between work and other 
forms of exercise Employments for women The Socialistico- 
Individualistic dualism is a pure fiction The law of social 
restraint The morality of aquatic sports and of the theatre 
Physical and subjective basis of education Rewards for 
inventions and for literary and artistic productions Distinc- 
tion between science and philosophy Man as a religious animal 
How to strengthen our virtue How to regulate population 
Importance of the family Standards of measurements Only 
two parties : (i) those who defend posterity, and (2) those who 
defend ancestry The scientific basis of political economy 
The area of land required to support us in clothing, beverages, 
and tobacco The United Kingdom is not half populated 
Scientific wealth destroys economic wealth Fallacies of trade 
theories Conscience monopoly Three stages in the evolution- 
of law : (i) obedience to divine law, (2) to human law, and 
(3) to natural law Weaknesses of the economic State con- 
trasted with the scientific Possible objections answered The 
scientific State is proof against all fraud .... 245-299 



Evolution of religion The super-moral and the super- virtuous 
Weaknesses of abstract religions Mellos as the scientific Deity 
Does the lawgiver beget the law, or the law the lawgiver ? 
Collision between science and religion The Humanitist's in- 
terpretation of science First Causes and Last Effects Re- 
markable analogies between Melloism and Christianity The 
religion of Christ has a scientific basis Scriptural passages 
which are intensely humanitistic Awkward position of ortho- 
dox theologians Humanitism viewed from the past, present, 
and future The scientific Deity is a logical necessity and a 
mathematical entity, not an abstract theory Abstract re- 
ligions must stand or fall with economicism Sacerdotalism 
Sales of political and spiritual indulgences Worship of 
humanity Logical conclusions of the Melloic religion 
Music, art, and poetry Jahveh, Zeus, and Mellos contrasted 
The fear of death Inseparable connection between Church 
and State 300-321 





Meaning of dualism All dualisms solved Distinction between 
scientific and abstract theories Necessity for theories and 
Deities Organic and inorganic matter Unorganised and 
vitalised minerals Vital and mechanical forces Vital, post- 
organic, and inorganic electricity Vital electricity in scientific 
rations Experiments of scientific vegetarians Heat dissi- 
pates the vito-electric current in the nerve-tissue of plants 
How nervous exhaustion is restored Distinction between 
curative and disturbative foods and drugs Measuring the 
vito-electric current Effects of hair and clothing upon vital 
electricity Sun, air, and rain baths How to prevent colds 
A measure of perfect health Changing matter into force and 
force into matter What is spirit and vital electricity ? The 
tendency of law Law is neither force nor matter . . 322-329 



Free-will and necessity Egoism and altruism Man and woman 
Master and servant Education and instinct Nationalism 
and internationalism All dualisms are fictions Developing 
structures by means of language Language and music 
Patriotism God as the symbol of unity, order, and harmony 
The deplorable condition of our art and the remedy 
Inutility of invisible, incalculable and unknowable Deities 
Pleasure and pain Scientific and stupefactive pleasures con- 
trasted Economic happiness must be egoistic Beauty and 
utility Beautiful objects cannot engender pain Beauty mea- 
sured by activity and repose The growth of happiness in- 
creases our sensibility to pain What is truth, justice, and 
light ? The Humanitist is a Materialist, a Spiritualist, an 
Individualist, a Socialist, a Positivist, an Agnostic, a Secularist, 
a Rationalist, a Utilitarian, a Humanitarian, a Theist, and a 
Christian Conclusion ....... 330-35 








IN this chapter I purpose to give a few leading maxims of 
distinguished philosophers in all ages, and then inquire into 
the methods of the most famous schools of philosophy. 

Cassendi and Mandeville regarded right as resting in the 
gratification of self-interest. Hobbes taught that self-pre- 
servation was the supreme good, and death the supreme evil ; 
that right was what the sovereign commanded, wrong what 
he forbade ; that war was a natural law war of all against 
all, which could only be averted by the sovereignty of the 
strongest. Representing the Positivists, Mr. Frederic Har- 
rison says : " To live for others and not for self is the real 
happiness of each of us, as it is our plain and simple duty." 
" The moral is the truly useful : it harmonises with the better 
part of human nature ; for nothing can be useful which is 
unjust, for this is a destroying element in human society." 
Cicero. " The corruption of the best things is the worst." 
Ancient Adage. " Man is the measure of all things." Pro- 
tagoras. " The end justifies the means." Macchiavelli and 
the Jesuits. " The individual is above society." Rousseau. 
" Right is the authority to promote that which is necessary 
to fulfil one's destiny." Krause. " Man has no rights except 



the right to do his duty." Comte. "Act according to your 
conscience." Fichte. "Know thyself." Socrates. "The 
happiness of the individual is the sovereign principle." 
Basedow. Moses Mendelssohn regarded the perfection of the 
individual as the supreme good and the source of moral con- 
duct. Helvetius taught that the gratification of the sensuous 
desires was the first principle of morality, and that self- 
interest was the lever of all intellectual action. Epicurus 
also preached the sovereignty of the sensuous desires, but in 
the higher and nobler sense of the word, and was a champion 
of moderation; while the opponents of these doctrines have 
preached abstinence from, or indifference to, objects which 
gratify our desires as the highest pleasure. The creed of 
moderation found an able exponent in Aristotle, and has had 
many disciples in China and Japan. Socrates taught that 
man should act from the intellect, not from the sense, and 
regarded self-denial, discretion, and especially a conviction of 
one's own ignorance and insufficiency as the basis of virtue. 
"Good is the aggregate of pleasure." Austin. "Live har- 
moniously with nature." The Stoics. "There exists no abso- 
lute virtue, and even so little an absolute vice : the only 
thing which deserves the name of virtue is moderation ; the 
only thing which can be named vice is the overstepping of 
moderation." Scliroot. Lycurgus, while believing that per- 
fect physical development was the great essential in the 
attainment of human felicity, inculcated, in his Spartan Laws, 
patriotism and the vanishing of the individual into society as 
the highest virtue ; and these Socialistic doctrines also found 
favour with Solon, Plato, and Aristotle also with the rulers 
of the Roman Empire ; which principle, however, degenerated 
to a despotic extreme under the Emperors. The Pythagoreans 
were the first to recognise the union of right and virtue in 
the community of property, and Plato carried this Commu- 
nistic theory so far that he advocated the pairing of men 
and women by State authority in such a manner as to breed 
the best offspring. Apart from modern Socialism, there are 
numerous philosophers who maintain that ignorance, disease, 
poverty, misery, and immorality go hand in hand with the 
extreme struggles for existence, and vindicate the restoration 


to virtue and happiness through amelioration of the material 
condition of the masses by State measures. Herbert Spencer 
robs the State of all its functions excepting the protection of 
life, liberty, and property, and the administration of justice ; 
and his theories are ardently defended by a large and influ- 
ential organisation of Individualists. "The liberty of man 
consists solely in this, that he obeys the laws of nature, be- 
cause he has himself recognised them as such, and not because 
they have been imposed upon him externally by any foreign 
will whatever, human or divine, collective or individual." 
Bakunin. " Right is the outer compulsion to act, or cease to 
act, for the purpose of respecting the liberty of others ; and 
morality is the inner necessity to act, or cease to act, without 
regard to external motives." Fichte. " The object of life is 
the welfare of the individual and the community : the indi- 
vidual, even the reigning sovereign, must subordinate himself 
to the general weal." Frederick II. The Nihilists, whose 
doctrines were first taught amongst the pious in ancient 
India, taught that the highest aim was the transition of the 
individual into the all-god : all earthly existence was an evil, 
and the highest happiness reposed in non-existence. This 
doctrine has found many adherents in all ages, and their 
supporters at the present day are called pessimists. " Act so 
that the maxim of your will may be capable of being re- 
garded as a principle of universal validity, or so that from 
the thought of your maxim as a law universally obeyed no 
contradiction results." Kant. A school of modern philoso- 
phers, under Locke, Bentham, Mill, Bain, and others, have 
attempted to revive the ancient rule, namely, the greatest 
happiness to the greatest number, and many living philoso- 
phers have adopted it as the supreme law of their conduct. 

The above brief summary is sufficient to prove the absence 
of harmony amongst our philosophers during the past two or 
three thousand years, and I am convinced that no apology 
will be required for seeking another method of attaining 
unity and concord ; not that these precepts are to be despised, 
for there are many golden rules amongst them. It will have 
been observed that the predominating ends to be attained 
are virtue, happiness, knowledge, right, the supreme good, 


morality, usefulness, justice, moderation, destiny, fulfilment 
of our desires, harmony with nature and conscience, perfec- 
tion, self-denial, discretion, liberty, development. Even if 
our philosophers were a unit in the acceptance of any one of 
these ends, no solution would yet be possible, for discord 
would at once arise in points of definition. What is modera- 
tion, right, justice, perfection, liberty, &c. ? The answers to 
these questions are the great disturbers of the peace. 

However, lest there should be some dominant school which 
bids fair to arrive at some universally recognised truth, let us 
take a brief historical survey of philosophy, ancient, mediaeval, 
and modern. Were we to examine the history of ancient Greece 
in detail, little would be left unsaid in philosophy, despite the 
imperfect fragments of their literature which have been handed 
down to us ; for ancient and modern problems are essentially 
the same, none of which have yet been solved, and modern philo- 
sophy has added nothing to guide us in our conduct or enable 
us to attain a clearer conception of a First Cause. The ruling 
thought during the Middle Ages was a theology rather than 
a philosophy, which will be considered in a separate chapter. 

Lewes, in his "History of Philosophy," divides ancient 
philosophy into nine epochs, each possessing the following 
characteristic : 

" i. Philosophy separates itself from theology, and attempts 
a reasoned explanation of cosmical phenomena." Tholes to 

" 2. The failure of cosmological speculations directs the efforts 
of philosophy to the psychological problems of the origin and 
limits of knowledge." Heraclitus to Democritus. 

" 3. The first crisis. The insufficiency of philosophy to solve 
the problem of existence and to establish a basis of certitude 
produces a sceptical indifference." The Sophists. 

11 4. Philosophy emerges from the crisis by a new develop- 
ment of method the application of dialectics as a negative 
process preparatory to the positive foundation of inductive 
inquiry." Socrates. 

" 5. Development of ethics consequent on the Socratic cir- 
cumscription of the aims of philosophy." The Megcerics to the 

11 6. Restoration of philosophy to its widest aims. Attempts 
to follow up the negative dialectics of Socrates with an 


affirmative solution of the chief problems. The necessity 
for a criterion of philosophy becomes for the first time dis- 
tinctly recognised. The answer to this question gives a 
logical basis to the subjective method." 1 Plato. 

" 7. Philosophy for the first time assumes the systematic 
form of a body of doctrine, all its conclusions respecting 
existence being referred to principles of logic. The criterion 
stated by Plato is systematised and applied by Aristotle. A 
method of proof takes its place amongst the chief instru- 
ments of thought." Aristotle. 

" 8. Second crisis in philosophy. The radical imperfection 
of the subjective method again becomes manifest in the 
impossibility of applying its criterion." The Sceptics to the 
New Academy. 

" 9. Reason allies itself with faith, and philosophy renounces 
its independence, becoming once more an instrument of theo- 
logy." Neo-Platonism to the End of Ancient Philosophy. 

In the pre-Socratic philosophy, beginning with Tholes (640 
550 B.C.), the inquiry was for an ultimate principle by means 
of which nature could be explained. 

That philosopher, placing reason above sense, arrived ab- 
stractly at the conclusion that water was the source of all 
things. Amongst his contemporaries, however, one concluded 
that air, another fire, and another a chaotic primeval matter 
was the ground of nature. The Pythagoreans attempted a 
higher solution by tracing the essence of things to numbers 
proportion and harmony ; but it is disputed whether this was 
regarded as a material or an ideal principle. The Electics, 
driving abstraction to the ultimate, enunciated the formula 
that " only being is, and non-being (becoming) is not at all." 
This theory of existence, especially in the minds of contem- 
porary philosophers, was essentially monistic, not dualistic. 
Heraclitus, regarding Electicism as dualistic, sought to har- 
monise this theory of pure and phenomenal being the 
dualism of the one and the many by his doctrine of "eter- 
nal flux," thus resolving the being and the non-being into both 
becoming ; the world was therefore neither the one nor the 
other, because it was both at the same time. Empedocles 
and the Atomists endeavoured to combine the principles of 
the Electic and Heraclitic schools in another way. The 

1 Lewes uses the "subjective method" in the sense in which I use the 
word "abstract," and "objective" in the sense in which I use the word 
" scientific." 


former considered the four elements to be eternal, imper- 
ishable, and self-subsistent, but divisible, and mingled and 
moulded by two moving forces friendship the uniting and 
strife the disuniting force. Friendship first held these elements 
in unity till strife came to produce discord. The Atomists 
derived phenomena from an infinite number of primeval atoms 
which were all alike in quality but unlike in" quantity. They 
were material particles, eternal, immutable, and indivisible, 
endowed with a primary motion which gave form to natural 
phenomena, and which were also the source of life. 

This was essentially the character of Greek philosophy 
when Anaxagoras (born about 500 B.C.) appeared to give a 
new turn to philosophic thought. The philosophy of his day 
was becoming very complicated, and a new basis was eagerly 

This philosopher perceived that the current conception of 
moving forces was vague and imperfect, and lacked the 
element of design in the explanation of the phenomena of 
nature. Accordingly, he introduced a world-forming in- 
telligence, a spontaneous, immaterial designer, free from, and 
merely a mover of, matter. This gave an idealistic turn to 
the materialistic and realistic tendency of the age, mind now 
being, in the creed of this school, the ultimate principle of all 
things which doctrine, however, required yet to be demon- 
strated. First there were the primitive constituents of inert 
matter, and then came the mind to put them in order. 
Anaxagoras, by his ingenious method of explanation, restored 
unity in philosophic thought, and closed the pre-Socratic 
period of realism. 

In the preceding philosophy, consciousness was made 
subjective to objective realities, objectivity being the only 
source of knowledge ; but now, in the Sophists, a new era 

This school sought to establish the principle of subjec- 
tivity, drawn from the Heraclitic doctrine of eternal flux. 
The individual had therefore now a higher existence than 
objective phenomena. State laws, inherited customs, religious 
traditions, and popular beliefs, thus giving reason supreme 
sway. Although having no philosophic system, they reduced 
knowledge to method were an encyclopaedia of knowledge. 
They strived after notoriety, especially amongst the rich, 
demanded stipend for their preaching, led a wandering life, 


made great rhetorical display, and styled themselves pro- 
fessional thinkers. However, they made more use of their 
wit than their knowledge, believing that a knowledge of facts 
was not necessary in discussing the problems of the times. 
Whatever their failings may have been, they taught the 
people to think methodically and speak correctly. Protagoras, 
the first Sophist, was banished from Athens as a blasphemer, 
having remarked that he was unable to know whether the 
Gods existed or not a precedent which might now be cited 
against the Columbus of Agnosticism. 

The way having been paved by the Sophists, Socrates 
(469-399 B.C.) inaugurated the era of the philosophy of 
objective thought. He turned the mind upon itself, and 
endeavoured to discover the nature of virtue. 

He believed in a supreme intelligence who was the cause 
of the marks of design, and defended the existence of the 
Gods, arguing from the structure of organised beings, and 
founding his reasoning on the general principle, that whatever 
existed for a use must be the work of intelligence. He feh 
inspired by the divinity to preach the gospel of his philosophy. 
For him there was nothing to be learned in the fields or 
amongst trees, and he accordingly confined his duties to the 
market-places and workshops, discussing practical problems 
of life, and convicting men of their ignorance, for which office 
he disdained all compensation, except the reward of a pure 
conscience. Genial, patriotic, and brave, he won many 
scholars, although he founded no school, and the sages of all 
times, agreeing with the Delphic oracle, have pronounced him 
the wisest of men. Having acted his principles, his biography 
is his philosophy. He was so pious that he did nothing 
without the sanction of the Gods, and disdained to become 
a politician. To know one's self and one's ignorance was the 
soul of his philosophy. Virtue was inseparable from know- 
ledge, and could only be attained by the exercise of right 
reason. Man was by nature a sympathetic and reasoning 
animal, with strong self-preserving and self-asserting instincts, 
and did not do wrong intentionally, but through ignorance. 
The function of reason, which in Socrates was the source of his 
piety, was recognition and realisation of the truth. To know 
what was right was to do what was good. Happiness consisted 
in the free and unhindered exercise of man's characteristic 
function reason. He recommended his doctrines in prefer- 
ence to those of other philosophers on account of their great 


utility and practical usefulness; and beauty and morality 
consisted in utility. Eeligious duties were reverence, grati- 
tude, and obedience, deeds being more effective than words, 
liight and law were identical both the laws of the State and 
the unwritten laws of the Gods, which were an universal senti- 
ment. It was impossible to escape the unwritten law in the 
conscience of men, but human law could sometimes be violated. 
The voice of the people was the voice of the Gods. Virtue 
was a science, and was therefore knowable, teachable, and 
learnable. Happiness was the highest good. To want 
nothing was divine. A real knowledge of God and godly 
things was inaccessible to man. This great philosopher, 
having been accused by influential and unprincipled dema- 
gogues of disbelief in the Gods of the State, of introducing 
new Gods, and of corrupting the Athenian youths, was con- 
demned ; and, choosing death before exile as being the more 
consistent with his philosophy, he died a victim of misunder- 
standing, of fidelity to ancestral custom, and of reactionary 

A pupil of Socrates, Antisthenes, the founder of the Cynics, 
adopted and enunciated the general principles of his great 
master, but carried the doctrine of self-control and freedom 
from want to its extremity. 

He taught that virtue was the supreme end of human life, 
and the only good. Enjoyment, sought for its own sake, was 
an eviL Virtue was sufficient for happiness, and its essence 
vas self-control. The sage was indifferent to honour, riches, 
and marriage. No form of government, actual or thinkable, 
suited the cynic ; for his happiness was bound up in isolation 
from society he was a " citizen of the world." Virtue was the 
only true object of worship, and the religion of the State should 
be no more binding on the sage than were the laws of men. 

The time had again arrived when a conciliation or fusion 
of the diverging schools of philosophy was needed, and the 
task fell to the lot of Plato (428-347 B.C.). This philosopher 
and his great successor, Aristotle, became the all-absorbing 
and all-dispensing luminaries of this period of Greek litera- 
ture. The Socratic germ, as the saying is, is traced to the 
Platonic blossom and the Aristotelian fruit. Socrates was 
essentially the educator and man of action, Plato the man of 
literature, and Aristotle the man of science. Plato spent 
eight years with his teacher, Socrates, and Aristotle enjoyed 


the society of Plato for twenty years. Alexander the Great 
having been a pupil of Aristotle, as was also Pericles a pupil 
of Anaxagoras, philosophy must have exercised considerable 
influence in ancient politics, just as political economy sways 
the politics of our day. 

The focus of Plato's philosophy was the theory of Ideas, 
which he conceived as being freed from time, space, and 
materiality; but the Idea, which was his basis, enjoyed a 
certain community with material objects, and to some extent 
dwelt in them. Especially from the highest of these Ideas, 
which he regarded as the efficient cause of concrete existences, 
Plato derived his conception of the Good, and then he per- 
sonified his idea-world as Gods. The highest Idea, the Good, 
he identified with the supreme deity. The method of 
acquiring knowledge was through logic; and mathematical, 
being mid-way between philosophical and sensible cognition, 
mathematical objects held the mean between things sensuous 
and ideal In his old age he attempted to reduce ideas to 
numbers, which marked another stage in the evolution towards 
realism. From such a foundation, then, he fashioned his 
theories of virtue, of human conduct, and of the State. His 
idea of the Good, as the aim of human activity, was 
rather a commingling of knowledge and pleasure than merely 
a life of both. The destiny of the soul was escape from 
inward and outward evils of sense, purification and emancipa- 
tion from all corporeal influences, striving to become pure, 
just, and like God, suppression of sensuous delights, retire- 
ment into cognition of truth wrapt up in philosophy. He 
repudiated the hedonistic theory that pure happiness was 
attainable, for it transformed itself so readily into pain. His 
theory of virtue was quite Socratic ; and, with Socrates, he 
believed the soul to be immortal. His theory of the State 
Avas the outcome of his philosophy. The supreme duty of the 
State was to train the citizens to virtue. The virtue of the 
rulers was wisdom, that of the warriors valour, and of trades- 
men and manual labourers self-restraint and willing obedience. 
The individual was to be completely absorbed in the State, 
moral into political virtue, and the laws were to be immut- 
able. There was to be but one family and one property pro- 
prietor the State. The / was to glide into the We. Plato's 
philosophy did not lead him to mention the word benevolence ; 
and he regarded the natural condition to be the casting out 
of feeble and imperfect children, and the sick M'ere neither 


to be tended nor nourished. His political institutions were 
decidedly of the aristocratic stamp, preference having been 
given to an unlimited monarchy, the ruler being a perfected 
philosopher, and all the politicians were to be able to philoso- 
phise fully and correctly. There was to be but one ruler, 
because there were so few philosophers. 

In Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) we find the analyser, the practical 
man, and the philosopher combined. Unlike Socrates, he 
held cities and multitudes in contempt; and, unlike Plato, 
the love of facts and nature being deeply rooted in his being, 
he moved from the concrete to its ultimate principles, from 
the datum to the idea, his method therefore being inductive 
or scientific analytical ; Plato's was deductive or philo- 
sophic synthetical. 

Aristotle reduces his philosophy to four principles : form 
(essence), matter, moving (efficient) cause, and end, the first 
mentioned being substituted for the Idea as enunciated by 
Plato. He combated the Platonic doctrine that the Ideas 
existed apart from concrete substances. Matter completely 
deprived of form did not exist ; mere matter was a purely 
abstract idea. But there existed an immaterial form-principle, 
a separate and independent existence, which was to be dis- 
tinguished from the inseparable forms inherent in matter. 
Matter was passive, was the ultimate source of imperfection, 
but caused individuation in things. Motion (change) was the 
evolution of potentiality into reality ; and as motion implied 
a moving cause, God, though himself unmoved, generated 
motion. He was the immaterial and eternal form, actuality 
without potentiality, a self-thinking reason or absolute spirit, 
absolutely perfect, universally loved, into whose image all 
things sought to gravitate. Aristotle's system was that of the 
Hcraclitic becoming, which was a marked tendency towards 
the undermining of the Platonic dualism. He was not a 
pious worshipper of the polytheistic theology of his country. 
He granted the existence of morality, like that of all physical 
objects ; and his inquiry into virtue was not to know what 
virtus was, but to be virtuous. All moral problems were to 
be abandoned which had no direct bearing on practical affairs. 
He disputed the Socratic teachableness of virtue. Moral 
principles were universal, belonging to all times, and not to 
any given age. His supreme Good was the purpose of our 
existence ; and the chief end of man, as humanity and not 
as individuals, was to reason, through the exercise of which 


process he grew virtuous, simply by habit. As for the indi- 
vidual, he had only to recognise and obey. The test of virtue, 
right conduct, was an adjustment between two extremes 
moderation ; and it was through the exercise of man's dis- 
tinctive faculty, reason, that he fulfilled his destiny, and 
attained happiness as a necessary consequence. The essence 
of pleasure was rational (virtuous) activity. A life devoted 
to sensual enjoyment was brutish, an ethico-political life was 
human, a scientific life divine. The soul, the animating 
principle, was related to the body as form to matter, and 
ceased with the body ; but the (active) reason, the separate, 
immaterial, self-subsistent, and divine principle, was immortal. 
(Here may be traced a dualism.) Man, being a political 
animal, could neither attain virtue nor happiness in his indi- 
vidual capacity; the existence of the State was therefore 
required to assist, protect, and afford opportunity for the 
practice of virtue. The State was higher than the individual 
and the family ; and, though originating for the protection of 
life, ought to exist for the promotion of morality and rectitude. 
Obedience without intelligence was slavish. Although himself 
an aristocrat and laying little stress on forms of government, 
believing that given times and given conditions were important 
factors, he preferred, in general, a constitutional monarchy 
an harmonious combination of the monarchical, aristocratic, 
and democratic elements and objected to oligarchy on the 
ground of happiness to the few, not to the many. A good 
government was one in which the rulers sought the public 
good ; bad, when they preferred their own interests. 

Although with Aristotle the period of Greek philosophy 
virtually closes, yet it is necessary for the purposes of our 
inquiry to notice briefly the leading schools of succeeding 
generations in order to understand how philosophy merges 
into Christianity. Up to this period, we have first the rule 
of realism, then of idealism, which attained its height in Plato ; 
and with him dawns also again the realistic phase, which 
culminated in Aristotle, who, in his turn, gave birth to the 
empiric school of modern philosophy. 

The chief feature of the post-Aristotelian philosophy was 
Stoicism, the founder of the Stoic school being Zeno. 

Their doctrines were essentially Socratic. All knowledge 
originated in experience or sensuous perception, the soul at 
first resembling a piece of blank paper on which impressions 


were yet to be made. God and matter being one substance, 
the Stoics united pantheism with materialism. Nothing incor- 
poreal existed. The immediate effect of this union of God 
and the world was the subjugation of the dualism of the 
spiritual and the material. Matter in itself was motionless 
and formless ; force was the active, moving, and forming 
agent God. The world was God's body; God the world's 
soul. This sensualism of the Stoics, however, stood out in 
.bold and strange contrast with the spiritualistic tendency of 
their moral conduct. Their moral principle was to live a life 
in harmony with nature. Individual considerations were 
subjected to those pertaining to the whole. Virtue, the sole 
end of rational beings, was also their sole happiness and sole 
good. The virtuous were not disturbed by want or the loss 
of earthly possessions, and were even indifferent to health. 
These were no evils; only vice was an evil, because it was 
contrary to nature. Amongst the later Stoics virtue consisted 
in absolute reason, absolute justice, absolute self-control over 
pain, and absolute mastery over lust and desire. The sage 
knew all that was to be known, having a true perception of 
the nature of things, divine and human, and did not lean upon 
the political element for his morality. The State emanated 
from man's social instincts, and it was a contradiction of 
nature that men should be divided into hostile tribes ; the 
whole race should form one community under one political 
code. At the end, all things were reabsorbed into the deity, 
the universe being first resolved into fire, and then a new 
evolution began, and so on in eternal succession, and the soul 
endured till the end of the world-period in which it existed. 

Epicurus (341-270 B.C.), the founder of Epicureanism, 
sought the supreme Good in human happiness, which was 
nothing but pleasure. 

Virtue had no value in itself except so far as it afforded 
an agreeable life. Pleasure was tranquil satisfaction enduring 
throughout the entire life, not momentary, and true pleasure 
could be attained by calculation and reflection. Those 
pleasures which prepared us for pain should be rejected, 
and those pains accepted which prepared us for greater 
pleasures. Spiritual joys and sorrows were superior to those 
of a fleshly nature, the latter being temporary. Pleasure 
demanded sobriety, temperance, limited wants, and a life in 
accord with nature. Above all evils not to be dreaded was 
death, which no wise man feared. Not to live was no evil. 


All phenomena were natural and intelligible, the interference 
of the Gods being unnecessary. The Gods had human form, 
but were without human wants, which was the highest ideal 
of happiness ; they dwelt between the spheres, and did not 
concern themselves with human affairs. Atoms and space 
were eternal. The soul was material, was composed of 
infinitely small atoms, and was closely allied to air and fire. 
Sensuous perception depended upon material images. 

The divergence of thought having again led to despair, an 
era of Scepticism was the result. 

The Sceptics denied the certainty of knowledge, denied 
also that they were certain that they knew nothing, and based 
their happiness on the suspense of judgment. The sceptical 
mood and peace of mind was a condition of pure indifference 
freedom from all care and desire, freedom from all knowledge 
of good and evil. Truth could neither be attained by man's 
perceptions nor by his ideas. All objective knowledge was 
impossible, and all that could be done was to follow the course 
of probability. There was no criterion of truth. 

This Scepticism continued until the total decline of Greek 
philosophy, and after the Christian era. The Eomans, whose 
Empire now held sway, conquered the Greeks, but were con- 
quered intellectually by Greek philosophy, which now formed 
a constituent element in Roman culture, the Roman mind 
being barren of philosophic originality. 

Alexandria had now become the great centre of culture, as 
well as of commerce. This great Egyptian city had also now 
become a political unit, and gathered men of letters from all 
civilised nations, notably Greeks and Jews. 

The dualism of subjectivity and objectivity, as well as of 
matter and force, still remained unsolved, and the last 
attempted solution ended in Neo-Platonism. 

The essential characteristics of the Neo-Platonic philoso- 
phers, if their system can be called a philosophy, were enthu- 
siasm, m.agic a pretended intercourse with spiritual beings ; 
most of them were addicted to sorcery, and the more notorious 
professed to be able to foreshadow future events and to work 
miracles. According to the most conspicuous representative 
of this school, Plotinus, a knowledge of the truth could not be 
attained by proof, but through visions, ecstasy, divine rapture 


a swooning into God. But this condition to which Scep- 
ticism had led failed in its object ; for the Sceptics had striven 
alter absolute peace, while this trancing into the Absolute 
proved the source of unsatisfying restlessness. The process 
produced a monism indeed, the philosophic dualism now- 
being solved ; but, by outwitting reason, proved the death of 
philosophy ; so ancient philosophy became annihilated in the 
struggles to subjugate a dualism, and the death of philosophy 
was the birth of Christian theology. 

Various attempts had afterwards been made to revive 
ancient philosophy, and especially, after the eleventh century, 
there developed a sort of Christian philosophy Scholasticism. 
Its function was a conciliation between Church dogma and 
philosophic thought between faith and reason ; an attempt 
to rationalise revelation. So violent a dualism was destined 
to a lamentable fate, and terminated in a temporary victory 
of faith. Gradually, however, philosophy shook off the 
fetters of dogma, and asserted independent sway. Scholasti- 
cism was nurtured mainly by the philosophy of Aristotle, as 
then understood. The Church became a sink of corruption, 
its authority began to decline, and there arose in the Kefor- 
mation a struggle for independence in religious thought. 
Classical literature revived, the natural sciences began to 
flourish, and the mind showed a tendency to penetrate more 
into nature than into itself. 

Lewes divides modern philosophy into eleven epochs, the 
transition period marking the struggles of philosophy to 
emancipate itself from theology, which it accomplished at 
the close of the Middle Ages. Ancient philosophy flourished 
during a period of about a thousand years before its capture 
by theology ; and a similar period of time elapsed from the 
extinction of the Greek schools to the period which marks 
the separation of philosophy from theology in the sixteenth 
century. These epochs are as follows : 

" i. Philosophy again separates itself from theology, and 
seeks the aid of science." Bacon, Descartes. 

" 2. The subjective method carried to its extreme results 
in pantheistic Idealism." Spinoza. 

" 3. Philosophy pauses to ascertain the scope and limits of 
the human mind." Hobbs, Locke, Leibnitz. 


" 4. The problem of an external world discussed on psycho- 
logical data." Berkeley. 

" 5. The arguments of Idealism carried out into Scepticism. 

" 6. Attempts to discover the mechanism of psychological 
action ; the Sensational school." Condillac, Hartley. 

" 7. Second crisis : Idealism, Scepticism, and Sensation- 
alism producing the reaction of common sense." Reid. 

" 8. Psychology finally recognised as a branch of biology 
the Phrenological hypothesis." Gall. 

" 9. Recurrence to the fundamental question respecting the 
origin of knowledge." Kant. 

" 10. Philosophy once more asserts a claim to absolute 
knowledge." Fichte, Schelling, Hegel. 

" n. Foundation of Positive Philosophy." Comte. 

Of these epochs, the eighth and eleventh do not belong to 
this chapter, for these belong to science rather than philo- 
sophy, and have nothing in common with abstract ideas. The 
Positive Philosophy marks the tendency of science to capture 
both philosophy and religion. 

The way having been prepared by Bacon, Descartes (1596- 
1650), a French scientist and soldier, is commonly regarded 
as the father of modern philosophy, and, having repudiated 
all previous systems, has received credit for a good deal of 
originality. His standpoint was first to expel from the mind 
all inherited customs, and to doubt everything which had the 
least appearance of uncertainty. 

The existence of all objects of sense was to be doubted, our 
senses often proving deceptive, and even the truths of mathe- 
matics ; for we could not know whether such was intended 
for finite beings, whether God had created us for mere opinion 
and error. But one thing we could not doubt, namely, that 
we who thought existed. "I know, therefore I am." From 
this certainty followed the whole nature of spirit. We could 
think ourselves all away except our thought. We were 
therefore essentially thinking beings spirit, soul, reason, 
intelligence. It was impossible for us to think and not to 
be. Our ideas were partly innate, partly received from with- 
out, and partly formed by ourselves. Amongst all of these, 
we conceived God to be the predominating idea, which could 
only be implanted in us by a perfect being an actually 
existent, infinite God, more perfect than ourselves, and could 


not be known by abstraction and negation, or through the 
senses ; it must be innate, and God's existence must be in- 
ferred from our own imperfections, particularly from our 
knowledge thereof. We knew through the innate idea and 
God's necessary attributes that he possessed veracity, and it 
would be a contradiction for him to deceive us or cause us 
to err. Were the ability to deceive a proof of superiority, 
the will to do so would be a proof of wickedness. All cer- 
tainty emanated from God, which was the source of natural 
philosophy, or the theory of the duality of substance, requiring 
nothing else for its subsistence. All error arose from misuse 
of freedom of will. God had the source of his existence in 
himself, and was the cause of himself ; but created substances, 
mind and matter, only required for their existence God's co- 
operation. Spirit and body possessed nothing in common ; 
and as matter was essentially extension, and spirit essentially 
thought, neither of them having anything in common, the 
union of soul and body was mechanical a forced union of 
essentially opposing natures. The seat of the soul and the 
thoughts was not the whole brain, but the pineal gland, which 
had no duplicate like other parts. The lower animals, having 
no pineal gland, self-consciousness, or thought, were mere 

Descartes having failed to reconcile his dualism except 
through a forced, one-sided, and external agency, the main 
difficulties observed amongst his successors were that, as 
matter and thought were different and opposed, bodily affec- 
tions could not consistently act on the soul, or the volitions 
of the soul on the body, and that the soul could not attain a 
knowledge of things corporeal and external the extended 

The next philosopher of note who elaborated the doctrine 
of Descartes was Spinoza (1632-1677), a theologian of Jewish 
extraction. The basis of his philosophy was three notions, 
namely, substance, attribute, and mode. 

There existed only one substance, and it required nothing 
for its support a self-conceivable and unlimited unit God, 
of which we cognised two attributes, thought and extension. 
It was inconsistent to think of the finite without the infinite. 
The absolute unconditioned substance was the cause of every 
finite existence, and was itself all being. God's freedom con- 


sfsted in the inner necessity of liis working nature. There 
was nothing bad in God, and nothing happened contrary to 
his will. The good was the useful, which enabled us to pro- 
cure greater reality, and to preserve and promote our being 
reason. The highest knowledge was the knowledge of God ; 
the highest virtue of the soul to know and love him. From 
this knowledge we derived happiness, joy, and peace, and 
deliverance from discord and discontent. Happiness was 
virtue itself, not virtue's reward. 

Spinoza's philosophy is a transformation of the Cartesian 
dualism into pantheism, and his God is identical with nature 
and natural law an inner working necessity or persistent 
force, which admitted no free-will on the part of finite beings. 
In applying his philosophy to human conduct, he regards 
evil as only relative, not positive a negation which appeared 
positive to finite minds. Descartes' isolation of thought and 
extension, spirit and matter, is now brought into unity of 
substance by Spinoza, but they are not a unit in themselves, 
being indifferent to substance itself, and so the separation is 
still complete. The position now is either to explain the 
ideal from the material side, or the material from the ideal 
side. Both of these attempts have been made, the result 
being that philosophic thought from that day to this has 
been divided into the schools of Idealism and Realism. The 
latter is also known under the names of empiricism, sen- 
sualism, and materialism. 

The way having been cleared by Hobbes, the real founder 
of the modern Eealistic school is John Locke (1632-1704). 
His theory of knowledge may be derived from the empirical 
interpretation of Aristotle, and has already been noticed 
under Stoicism, namely 

That there were no innate ideas in the mind, that all know- 
ledge originated in experience. The understanding (soul) was 
at first a blank page. Experience was twofold: (i) the per- 
ception of external objects sensation ; and (2) the internal 
operations of the soul reflection. The understanding derived 
all its ideas from sensation and reflection. His moral prin- 
ciple was happiness. From his borrowed postulate, namely, 
that nothing exists in the mind which has not had a prior 
existence in the external world, the inference has been drawn 



that he gave matter precedence to mind, and made the soul a 
material substance. 

The empiricism of Locke was followed by the scepticism 
of Hume, who derived the doctrine that thought (soul) was 
merely a succession of transitory ideas, was therefore an 
illusion, and must necessarily cease with the movements of 
the body. But such logic, not being congenial to the Eng- 
lish character, was driven to its ultimate by the French 

Condillac, commencing with Locke's postulate, resolved 
sensation and reflection into one condition sensation. He 
did not deny the existence of God, and maintained the 
immortality of the soul. It was reserved for Helvetius (1715- 
1771) to draw the logical conclusion of sensationalism, basing 
his moral principle on the gratification of the sensuous, which 
aroused the wrath of the priesthood. Self-interest, in his 
philosophy, was the mainspring of all our actions, and self- 
love (self-interest) led to a life of bodily enjoyment only. It 
was irrational to expect men to do good merely for the sake 
of good, or commit evil for the sake of evil. In order to 
become an active agent, morality must be sought in this 
empirical source, and legislation should shape its measures 

Before the Revolution in France general demoralisation 
reigned supreme. The State had degenerated into a despot- 
ism and the Church into a tyrannical hierarchy. Unlike 
England, France became specially receptive of sensualistic- 
ideas. It was against the interests of the ruling classes in 
England that the influence of the Church should wane; and 
the Scottish philosophy was aimed at the empiricism of Locke 
and the scepticism of Hume. The essential characteristic of 
the French philosophy of the eighteenth century was opposi- 
tion to the "tyranny and corruption which reigned everywhere 
in politics, religion, and private life; an attempt to restore 
liberty and reason. This spirit of aggression found vent 
mainly in the person of Voltaire (1694-1778), who, though 
not an atheist but a bitter foe of priestcraft and Christianity, 
considered a belief in a Supreme Being to be so essential that 
if there were no God it would be necessary to invent one ; 


but he doubted the immortality of the soul. Diderot, a deist 
in his earlier days, drifted into pantheism, and regarded im- 
mortality as a life in the memory of posterity. 

La Mettrie pronounced everything spiritual to be a delusion, 
and a belief in God equally groundless and profitless. The 
road to happiness was through universal atheism, which was 
to put an end to all religious wars. The assumption that the 
soul lived after the death of the body was to maintain that a 
function continued after the organ had disappeared. Morality 
could not be practical unless founded on self-interest, the pur- 
suit of which was man's supreme good. As a physician, he 
pronounced the brain to have its fibres of thought, just as the 
limbs had their muscles of motion. Man's superiority over 
the lower animals was due to the organisation of his brain 
and his education ; otherwise he was a mere animal, and 
inferior to the lower orders in many respects. Earthly enjoy- 
ment was man's morality. There existed nothing but matter 
and motion, which were inseparably combined; and natural 
law was eternal and immutable. 

This extreme dogmatic materialism, beginning with Locke, 
closed the philosophy of abstract realism, and naturally created 
a tendency in the direction of idealism. In realism the ten- 
dency is to materialise mind, the spirit being a blank tablet 
depending for knowledge upon the world of sense a passive 
condition ; while in idealism the tendency is to spiritualise 
matter, knowledge being derived from the soul itself an 
active condition. 

Now reappears the notion of design, pre-established har- 
mony, and this agency is now again invoked to bring about a 
union between spirit and matter thinking and being, which 
characterises the philosophy of Leibnitz (1646-1716), a German 
philosopher and Doctor of Laws, and one of the profoundest 
thinkers that ever lived. He was master of science and 
philosophy, and based his physics upon metaphysics. He 
avoided the dualism of Descartes and the monism of Spinoza 
through his theory of monads infinitesimal entities somewhat 
akin to the atoms in Greek philosophy. 

A monad was a simple substance devoid of extension, an 
indivisible, metaphysical point, possessed of the power of 
action, and the centre of living activity a soul, which received 


no influx from external sources. Active force was a property 
of substance like a strained bow. There was a plurality of 
these monads, the existence of only one being impossible, 
and they constituted the essence of all spiritual and physical 
phenomena. All monads had ideas which differed only in 
degrees of clearness. The thinking monads were capable of 
clear and distinct ideas, and could have single adequate ideas. 
God was the primitive monad, whose ideas were all adequate, 
and, as rational entities, the ideas had consciousness of them- 
selves and of God. In inorganic nature the monads were in 
a state of unconscious sleep, only exhibiting motion. The 
higher monads, the state of vegetation, enjoyed vitality with- 
out consciousness ; and in the animal world the monads 
attained sensation and memory, the state of reason and reflec- 
tion being spirit. Between the succession of ideas and the 
motion of the monads, there existed through God a predeter- 
mined harmony. Man's soul and body stood in harmony like 
two watches originally set together, moving precisely at the 
same speed. All thoughts were properly innate, being 
evolved from the soul, and were independent of external 
influences. This world was the best of all possible worlds. 

The philosophy of Leibnitz, as well as his theories of 
religion and morals, is subject to different interpretations; 
but his idealism does not reach its ultimate, and is to some 
extent impregnated with realism. We are dependent upon 
Berkeley, an Irish bishop, for pure idealism. All our ideas, in 
his philosophy, we derived from God, they existed in God, 
and there was no such thing as matter. He regarded this 
doctrine as the surest means of vanquishing atheism and 
scepticism. This dogmatic idealism received no further de- 
velopment ; but the philosophy of Leibnitz was further evolved 
by Christian Wolff and other German philosophers. 

The profound philosophy of the great German illumination 
I must but barely mention, for no epitomising consistent with 
my limited space can do it justice. It is sufficient, so far as 
this inquiry is concerned, to know that these philosophic 
problems still remain unsolved ; that through abstract theo- 
rising we have obtained no knowledge fitted to guide us in 
our daily walks ; that it has given rise to ever-increasing 
discord ; and that a different basis for the restoration of har- 
mony is devoutly to be wished. With reference to the political 


theories of the leading German philosophers, however, I shall 
notice them briefly in my chapter on the State. 

To Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), the profoundest of the 
German philosophers, is due the credit of restoring philosophy 
from the unphilosophic extremes of realism and idealism, and 
through critical inquiry he completely annihilated dogmatism. 
His philosophy is idealistic, and affirms three postulates, 
namely, the immortality of the soul, the existence of God, and 
the freedom of the will. The philosophy of Fichte ended in 
subjective idealism; 1 the philosophy of Schelling in objective 
idealism ; and that of Hegel in absolute idealism. Herbert 
taught that experience was the basis of philosophy, no know- 
ledge being attainable outside of this limit. With Hegel, in 
contrast with Schelling, the idea was the absolute, all actuality 
being merely the realisation of the idea. 

The history of philosophy virtually closes here ; but in 
recent years an attempt has been made in England to revive 
the ancient doctrine of happiness as the supreme good, under 
the name of the "Greatest Happiness Principle," or Utili- 
tarianism. I would not regard this school as being of much 
importance in connection with my inquiry were it not for the 
fact that the tendency of recent political economy, in despair 
of arriving at unity and truth by the orthodox methods, has 
been to scatter its scanty elements of fertility over Utilitarian 
pastures the basing of economic theories upon another form of 
abstraction. Another feature is the relation of Utilitarianism to 
the evolutionary philosophy of Herbert Spencer, who, although 
in general recognising the Greatest Happiness Principle, is 
unable to define what happiness is. An essential characteristic 
of Utilitarianism is, that its defenders are for the most part 
atheistic in their beliefs, and in this sense it is allied with 
Socialistic politics and philosophy ; while Herbert Spencer, 
who, although a theist in the sense of entertaining respect, 
reverence, and awe for an Unknowable, Infinite, and Eternal 
Energy, is an enemy of revealed religion or scientific theology. 
His ethics are summed up as follows : " The experiences of 
utility, organised and consolidated through all past genera- 

1 Subjective idealism means that the ideas are produced by the mind ; 
and objective idealism, that they originate in God. 


tions of the human, race, have been producing corresponding 
nervous modifications, which, by continued transmission and 
accumulation, have become in us certain faculties of moral 
intuition certain emotions responding to right and wrong 
conduct, which have no apparent basis in the individual ex- 
periences of utility." This doctrine requires further develop- 
ment before it can be turned to practical account. 

The founder of the modern school of Utilitarianism is 
Bentham, who defines utility to be the tendency of actions to 
produce happiness and prevent misery in relation to a given 
party, usually the community. Some of his leading disciples 
are John Austin, -John Stuart Mill, and Professor Bain. The 
postulate of the school is : " The greatest happiness to the 
greatest number of the human family, with the least injury to 

Morality, the test of which was utility, was a social 
instinct, and aimed at the well-being of society in preference 
to individual happiness. Utility was the only safeguard in 
legislation. The test of rational morality never varied ; the 
standard was governed by the ability to apply it, modified by 
differences in education, &c. An action was right or wrong 
according to its bearing on happiness. There existed a moral 
sense ; but it was not innate or revealed. The useful included 
the agreeable and the ornamental, but gross evils were incon- 
sistent with happiness. Self-denial, simplicity of living, and 
tranquillity and excitement in due proportion should be prac- 
tised. Happiness was increased by removing poverty and 
disease through the exercise of intelligence and virtue. 

Before making any observations on the positive weaknesses 
of abstract processes, I shall be able to present the question 
more clearly and forcibly by taking a glance at philosophy's 
wayward sister, Religion, and shall dispassionately consider 
her origin and development. 



MY classification of religion under " abstract methods " may 
require defence.- It will be my duty in this chapter to show 
that religion, like philosophy, is an abstraction, thus account- 
ing for the various religious denominations ; but I shall be 
obliged to omit an epitomising of the numerous theological 
doctrines, partly owing to my lack of space and partly owing 
to their being well known. I shall not deny that religion is 
a revelation, but shall also show that philosophy may press 
the same claims. 

A belief prevails that social unity and harmony can never 
be attained except through religious agencies. It is to be 
regretted that a subject of such vast importance in relation to 
my inquiry should be complicated in so many ways. It would 
be unwarrantable on my part to insist that Christianity is 
meant when religion is named ; for there are many who do 
not regard the former as absolute truth, believing that any 
faith which binds men's consciences serves all the purposes 
intended, the essential nature of which is a belief in a First 
Cause. Were I to say that the lack of harmony in religious 
and theologic thought was proof of a false basis, the answer 
Avould be, that there is no want of harmony ; that all civilised 
nations worshipped the same God, the apparent discord being 
mere matters of detail ; and that the time would soon come 
when all sects and nations would be brought into a knowledge 
of the truth. 

The following opinions have been advanced with reference 
to the origin of religions : i. A feeling of dependence and 
a conviction of moral obligation. 2. Respect for moral con- 
duct and family life. 3. Fear. 4. Specific ethical feelings, 



especially love. 5. Desire. 6. The imagination. 7. Poetry 
(poetic fancy). 8. Wonder. 9. Priestcraft. 10. Quackery, 
ir. Hero-worship. 12. Ancestor - worship. 13. Use of 
metaphorical language. 

Max Miiller, speaking from the standpoint of the origin 
and development of language, takes the view last expressed. 
For example : Zeus, the chief God of the Greeks, originally 
meant the sky; in process of time it became personified, so 
that in the expression "Zeus rains," the word Zeus came to 
be conceived as a superior being a God, who caused the rain 
to descend, and then other powers gradually became attributed 
to him. 

Although it is certain that our forefathers have worshipped 
their fellow-men also stocks and stones, and all kinds of 
objects, animate and inanimate yet it may be said, even 
granting any one or more of the above opinions to be true, that 
there is no proof of the absence of revelation or inspiration. 

The most scientific inquiry that has been made into the 
origin of religions is by Herbert Spencer, in his work entitled 
Ecclesiastical Institutions, and if he has not presented sufficient 
evidence to convince prejudiced minds, there is abundant 
scope for further investigation. The assumption has generally 
prevailed that religion is a universal instinct, pervading the 
feelings of all human beings, but this theory has been dis- 
proved by scientific investigation. Spencer's conclusion is 
that all religions originated in ancestor- worship. I shall here 
briefly summarise the first chapter of his above-named work, 
giving the main facts without reference to their source. His 
showings are substantially as follows : 

Man was not a religious being by nature, the theory being 
disproved both by examination of some uncivilised tribes and 
also by some civilised people whose minds from infancy had 
been cut off through bodily defects from intercourse with 
their fellows. With them neither the idea of a God nor of 
an immortality was innate. The idea of ghost-propitiation 
was very strong in the dawn of all religions, and evolved 
into different forms of worship. In the traces of prehistoric 
man, all evidence proved that ancestor-worship was the 
foundation of all religions then prevailing. Amongst some 


savages, tlie absence of one's other self in sleep and swoon 
was regarded as an unlimited absence after death, the spirit 
commonly lingering near the body or revisiting it, and walk- 
ing at night in search of food ; hence milk was left beside the 
grave for infants, food and needful implements for adults; 
and the sacrificing of human beings as food for the dead, 
sprinkling food about their favourite haunts, &c., became 
common observances. Unless these " doubles " were attended 
to in such ways, trouble was apprehended. Some imagined 
that the dead wandered amongst the living and attended 
them, and others that the ghosts of their ancestors inhabited 
the adjacent woods. Food was placed on grave-heaps, and 
every passer-by added some offering. On a prince's grave 
(in Vera Paz) a stone altar was erected, where incense was 
burnt and sacrifices made in memory of the deceased, and 
shelters for altars, or rude huts, were constructed amongst 
various peoples, which developed into temples, where praise 
and prayer were offered. An effigy of a dead man, originally 
placed on the grave and afterwards in other locations, became 
a habitation for his ghost; and rude figures of naked men 
and women became inhabited by spirits. Such images were 
often propitiated owing to the indwelling doubles of the 
dead. An African race (Wahebe), however, had no respect 
for their dead, the bodies being generally cast into the jungle 
to be devoured by the hyenas. Sometimes the ancestors 
became identified with certain animals, which were conse- 
quently reverenced or worshipped e.g., house-frequenting 
snakes and they were then fed and tended by the de- 
scendants of the deceased. Sometimes the ghosts and gods 
turned into flies. Ancestral names, such as Wolf and Bear, 
originated in this belief. The stars were camp-fires lit 
by the dead on their way to the other world; hence was 
derived the worship of the sun and of the vault of heaven, 
and names of persons were traceable to other celestial appear- 
ances. Deified ancestors grew into superhuman Gods. Em- 
peror-worship developed amongst the Romans, the statues 
of the emperors being real idols, to whom incense, victims, 
and prayers were offered. Amongst some of our own 
ancestors, the Gods were merely superior men. Originally, 
dream-life was identified with real life, and shadows were 
entities. Such origins were common to all religious beliefs ; 
and the Hebrew religion was no exception to the rule. The 
Hebrews placed great faith in the reality of dreams and 
dream-like beings. The dead sometimes heard and answered, 
were propitiated by gashing the body and cutting the hair, 


received food, spirits haunted burial-places, and demons 
entered into men, causing their maladies and sins. Addicted, 
like existing savages, to amulets, charms, exorcisms, &c., the 
Hebrews also had functionaries who corresponded to the 
medicine-men men having "familiar spirits," "wizards" 
(Isa. viii. 19), and others, originally called seers, but after- 
wards prophets (i Sam. ix. 9); and Samuel, in calling for 
thunder and rain, played the part of a weather-doctor 
a personage still found in various parts of the world. Also 
sundry traditions e.g., the deluge the Hebrews held in 
common with other peoples ; and the story of Moses' birth 
had its parallel amongst the Assyrians, whose enactments 
were of the same general character as those of the Jewish 
Code. The Jews believed in and sacrificed to other Gods 
than Jahveh, the angels and archangels fighting in heaven, 
the people fighting on earth incidents paralleled by those 
of existing savages ; and, like other people's Gods, Jahveh 
had incapacities, intellectually and morally (i Sam. iv. 3-10; 
Judges i. 19). There were also similarities in the boastful 
and revengeful natures (Isa. xlviii. n); and Jahveh's decep- 
tion (2 Chron. xviii. 20-22) was likened unto the lying spirit 
whom Zeus sent to mislead Agamemnon. So with reference 
to the forms of worship, there were also comparisons. Like 
the Hebrews, the Mexicans burnt incense ; and Jahveh, like 
the idol-inhabiting Gods of the negroes, enjoyed the " sweet 
savour" of burnt offerings. To the ancient Gods of Mexico 
and Central America the blood of sacrificed men and 
animals were continually offered up, the image of God some- 
times being anointed therewith, and sometimes the cornice 
of the doorway of the temple ; and the Egyptians and 
Greeks, like the Hebrews, offered hecatombs of oxen and 
sheep. The offerings of the Greeks and the Peruvians were 
without spot and blemish ; Jahveh, like Zeus, descended in 
the cloud, sometimes with thunder and lightning, and Zeus' 
decrees were brought down in tables, as it were. Dancing 
was a form of worship performed alike by the Hebrews and 
the Greeks, and by various savages. The Greeks regarded 
the fulfilment of prophecies as evidence of the truth of 
their religion ; and, amongst the Sandwich Islanders, Captain 
Cook's death was a fulfilment of the prophecies of their 
priests. The working of miracles was a common occurrence 
amongst the Gods of all peoples. Only in the earliest times 
did Jahveh appear to men in human shape ; the Greek Gods 
so appeared but rarely in later traditions, and in ancient 
Central America the Gods did not come down and speak to 


their devotees, as their ancestors said they used to do. In 
many religions there were God-begotten sons who descended 
to the earth ; and the Gods themselves came down to ravish 
our virgins. There was a sort of mediatorship in all re- 
ligions, and there were many observances corresponding to 
the Eucharist. The Christian Crusades, to obtain possession 
of the holy sepulchre, had their prototype in the sacred war 
of the Greeks to obtain access to Delphi. The Christian 
worship partly consisted in reciting the doings of the Hebrew 
God, prophets, and kings ; and part of the Greek worship 
consisted in reciting the deeds of Homeric Gods and heroes. 
The Greek temples, like Christian cathedrals, were enriched 
by precious gifts from kings and wealthy men to obtain 
divine favour and forgiveness ; St. Peter's, at Rome, was 
built by funds contributed in the same way as that by which 
the temple of Delphi was rebuilt; and, according to Grote, 
"the lives of the Saints bring us ever back to the simple and 
ever-operative theology of the Homeric age ; " l and " various 
religions in the new and old worlds showed us, in common 
with Christianity, baptism, confession, canonisation, celibacy, 
the saying of grace, and other minor observances." 

The above abstract leads us to a point of unity in two 
ways : (i) that all the theories advanced respecting the origin 
of religion are substantially correct, and (2) that religion is a 
pure abstraction. It does not reject the idea of revelation 
properly interpreted, but establishes a kindred quality between 
religious and philosophic forms of revelation. It would not 
be amiss to regard both philosophy and religion as revelations, 
and reject the idea of abstraction altogether. 

The shades of difference between philosophy and religion 
are now readily comprehended. In its earliest conceptions 
religion is essentially objective, and gradually develops into 
subjectivity, unless disturbed by potent forces. The dead 
ancestor or hero becomes an object of the imagination, and as 
he grows in age and power, the supernatural attributes at the 
same time increasing, the worshipper grows more and more 
subject to his will, which is more or less revealed. As the 
" doubles " correspond on earth, so they must also correspond 

1 The words here quoted are not those of Spencer, but those of Grote, 
the great historian of Greece. The succeeding clause is Spencer's own 


in heaven ; and in proportion to the gain in terrestrial 
sovereignty of the tribe, the monotheistic tendency must 
harmonise in' heaven as on earth. The God who showers 
down power becomes a mighty God, and the worshipper 
becomes more and more subject to the divine will. This 
earthly supremacy, however, enjoyed through ages of triumph, 
leads to licentiousness both amongst the worshippers and the 
deities, and the latter, still retaining their sovereignty, now 
begin to exercise it in the punishment of their devotees on 
account of their sins. The philosopher idealises the real 
(spiritualises matter), while the religionist realises the ideal 
(feels his idealised ancestors). The philosopher shuts his eyes 
and thinks (objectivity) ; the religionist shuts his eyes and 
feels (subjectivity). The philosopher's conduct is supposed to 
be regulated by actions which he regards as being consistent 
with the highest ideas attained by and revealed through his 
own reason or that of the school to which he belongs ; the 
religionist bases his conduct upon obedience to a revealed 
will authority. The question of faith does not separate the 
philosopher from the religionist, for he who lacks faith in his 
philosophy is no philosopher. All the religious strifes, all the 
bloodshed, have been wars of the dead against the living. 
The dualism of Church and State, which raged during the 
Middle Ages, was subjugated by a victory of the living over 
the dead, but the latter are not yet extinct. We have been 
governed by Westminster Abbey rather than by Westminster 

Christianity may now be summed up briefly. The first 
striking feature is its lack of originality, although St. Paul 
was a great organiser. The licentiousness of the Greeks, 
naturally accompanied by a corresponding licentiousness 
amongst their Gods, was favourable to a reaction in the direc- 
tion of the Stoic philosophy, which forms a leading feature 
of the Christian religion. The Jewish religion had long been 
known to the Greek philosophers, and the commingling of 
Jews and Greeks in Alexandria where Christianity was 
born, although cradled in Palestine was favourable to an 
amalgamation, especially as the most highly cultivated 
amongst the Alexandrian Jews had now continued the 


practice of interpreting the Sacred Scriptures allegorically. 
The policy of the Jewish-Greek philosophers was to blend 
Judaism with Hellenism; and Philo, who was the first to 
reduce theosophy to a system, allegorically introduced philo- 
sophic ideas into the Jewish religion. Scepticism, which 
developed into Neo-Platonism, formed a strong element in 
Christianity. Christ was an attempted union of realisation 
and idealisation. The Incarnation typified Jewish (subjective) 
realisation, and the Ascension typified Greek (objective) 
idealisation. The social forces produced an irresistible ten- 
dency in this direction. There is nothing surprising in this ; 
for, as we shall see, the abstract thinkers of the present day 
are making desperate efforts to force natural laws into lines 
parallel with their ideas. Such violent dualisms possess no 
element of perpetuity. The early success of the Christian 
religion was largely due to the favourable impression which it 
made on the poor, who, through the promises of Heaven, 
heard the Word gladly, and partly to increased facilities for 
spreading knowledge. Comfort is always welcome in times of 
poverty and oppression. The Church, taking advantage of 
the new situation, preyed upon the superstition of the masses 
in order to subject their consciences, which ended in ecclesi- 
astical suicide and religious individualism, just as feudalism 
ended in political individualism, and the Socialistic reaction of 
the present day must prove the beginning of a similar cycle. 
The poor of our times are reversely situated, it being now the 
policy of the rich to hear the Word gladly, and the history of 
these cycles of objectivity and subjectivity prove the futility of 
attempting to maintain order and harmony through abstract 
methods. Christianity may be characterised as a commingling 
of Judaism, Jewish-Alexandrian philosophy, scepticism, Stoic 
materialism and self-denial, Neo-Platonism, and scholasticism. 
Such an admixture of monisms and dualisms is doomed 
to a tragic fate. In our own day we can distinguish the 
predominating elements. For example, in Romanism and 
Anglicanism we find sacerdotal Christianity Jahvism; in 
Presbyterianism, philosophic Christianity Jovism ; and in 
Methodism, ecstatic Christianity Neo-Platonism. All our 
religious denominations are varying shades of these three forms. 


Many curiosities may be presented in another shape. For 
instance : the Stoics, materialists, founded the most spiritual 
philosophy and led the most spiritual lives ; Locke, a Church- 
man all his days, was the founder of modern materialism ; 
Spinoza, a Jew who rejected Judaism without embracing 
Christianity, also a materialist, led a profoundly pure, pious, 
and abstemious life ; the Christian Church, spiritualistic, sank 
into the lowest depths of corruption ; and Socrates, a heathen 
philosopher, was inspired to preach the Gospel, disdaining 
any reward except a pure conscience, and chose death rather 
than a life inconsistent with his religion. 

Let us now consider a few of the weaknesses of philosophy 
and religion from the positive standpoint. First, and not least, 
are the arguments with reference to design and a First Cause. 
In concrete methods of thinking there can be no such 
thins; as a First Cause that is, a first cause of all things. 

O O 

Our little world, even our solar system and many other 
systems, may have a first cause ; but neither matter nor force 
(including spirit or mind), or any combination of them, can 
beget itself, even by virtue of its own innate, supernatural 
intelligence. In examining concrete objects, we find a Last 
Effect to be just as imperative as a First Cause that every 
cause must have an antecedent, as well as a subsequent, effect. 
Simple addition and subtraction teach us this truth. We 
cannot add one marble to another without subtracting it from 
something else, nor can we add a shovelful of coal to the 
flame without subtracting it from posterity. Equally falla- 
cious is the argument of design. I have already pointed out 
instances, and shall point out many more, in which nature 
shakes off dualisms and restores harmony, law, and order in 
spite of temporary resistance from civilised man. Harmony, 
or marks of design, is a condition of existence. A watch is a 
more ingenious contrivance than a rat-trap, and the question 
resolves itself into this : Which is the easier belief, that the 
watch, or the trap, made itself? An answer to this question 
will enable us to decide which is the more rational belief, 
that the world or the supposed First Cause is self-existent. 
Besides, it is impossible to conceive an era in which neither 
time nor space existed, and if we could conceive the existence 


of nothing but space, we could not think of it as being an 
absolute vacuum, containing neither heat nor cold, matter nor 
force, light nor darkness, or as being bounded by a wall. 
Another illustration will show how easily we can infatuate 
ourselves by fanatical adherence to abstract theories. The 
ancient Greeks believed that their giant-god, Atlas, supported 
the world on his shoulders. Who or what supported Atlas ? 
There is a tradition, probably modified from an ancient Indian 
source, that the world rested on an elephant. What does the 
elephant stand on 1 On another elephant. What does the other 
elephant stand on ? Oh, there are elephants all the way down. 
Here are three different periods in the development of this 
religion, but the tradition leaves us, I suppose, to infer that 
the last elephant stood on the back of one so large and strong 
that he was able to support all the smaller elephants and the 
world on their backs. This religion was more highly deve- 
loped than that of the Greeks, Avho could only discover one 
elephant (Atlas) ; and the Christian religion is more highly 
developed than the Greekish, as the following facts will show. 
Philo, a Jewish-Alexandrian philosopher, regarded the Word 
(Logos) as being intermediate between God and the world, 
God being the Cause of the world as distinguished from the 
Word through whom it was formed. Marcian declared the 
Creator of the world to be inferior to the supreme God ; and 
Irenaius taught that the Nous (personified reason) emanated 
from the unbegotten Father, the Word emanating from the 
Nous. The early Christians taught that the world was created 
or formed by the Word whom God created for that pur- 
pose. In these examples we find our world standing on two 

There is a weakness which pertains more to religion l than 
to philosophy. I refer to the allegorical interpretation of 
the Scriptures. This weakness, however, is also a source of 
their strength. If they were incapable of such interpretation, 
the march of thought, freed from the fetters of religion, would 
utterly destroy them in a scientific age ; but so long as they 
can, by flexibility of interpretation, be made to follow the 

1 As will be seen in a later chapter, the religion of Christ has a true 
scientific basis, but priestcraft "religion " is quite a different matter. 


progress of events, their existence is more secure. By its very 
nature, religion must be strongly conservative, and can only 
be moved by a strong and persistent force, while progressive- 
ness is not so inconsistent with the nature of philosophy, 
despite our stubborn adherence to the "wisdom of our 

When scholastic philosophy, called to aid religion, failed, it 
was urged by the early reformers that no Christian could 
philosophise correctly unless he received spiritual regeneration. 
This anticipation not being realised, the Church received 
another blow; for one of two positions was proved: either 
(i) that the rule was unphilosophic and false, or (2) that the 
priests and other expounders of Christianity were not spirit- 
ually regenerated because the breach grew wider and wider 
after this declaration. 

Rev. Dawson Burns says : " The whole machinery of 
religious instruction, were it multiplied a hundredfold, would 
be insufficient in acting upon the mass of misery and im- 
morality which is drink-created." Professor Blackie, who is 
certainly orthodox, praises Socrates for his piety, 1 the infer- 
ence being that piety from all sources, if producing equal 
intensity, has equal value that heathen piety, if it produces 
the same results as Christian piety, conduces to the same end. 
I recently read in a monthly magazine a remark made by a 
clergyman (the names have escaped my memory) to the effect 
that barbarians perished through forces from without, and civi- 
lised society from inner decay. This is a sad commentary on 
Christians, who maintain that civilisation is the offspring 
of Christianity, and we arrive at the absurdity that the same 
force which is intended to enquicken our inner life is productive 
of its inner decay. I make the observations contained in this 
paragraph for the purpose of showing the weakness which 
results when the preachers of Christianity lose faith in the 
efficacy of their own treatment. 

It is certainly a practical weakness when the various 

religious sects cannot be classified according to their moral 

standards. When a position of trust is vacant, who is most 

competent to fill it, the sacerdotal, the philosophical, or the 

1 Four Phases of Morals. 


ecstatic Christian ? The futility of attempting such classi- 
fications, together with the fact that the employer does not 
concern himself about the theological beliefs of his respon- 
sible employt, greatly detracts from the practical efficiency 
of religion. From the practical standpoint, Christianity is 
subjected to another weakness. Statistics show that over 
; i, ooo, ooo are raised annually in this country for Protestant 
missions, and it is estimated that an equal sum is annually 
raised in Europe and America. About 6000 European and 
American missionaries and 30,000 native agents are employed 
in Christianising the heathen. The annual increase of native 
Christians, due to missionary zeal and enterprise, is reckoned 
to be 60,000 ; but we have no estimate of the sums required 
to prevent relapses and backslidings. It may be tolerably 
easy to persuade the heathen that the shades of the Jews' 
ancestors are more powerful and dreadful than the ghosts of 
his own ancestors ; but to maintain him in this belief demands 
piety, skill, and money. This circumstance would not be so 
misfortunate for the cause of religion were it not for the fact 
that these ^2, 000,000 would maintain annually the bodies 
and souls of over 200,000 of the starving heathens in our 
own cities ; and, besides, no sums have been collected for 
the conversion of our millions of highly educated barbarians. 
Money collected for missionary work should, one would 
think, be no respecter of persons. 

Abstract theories are also subjected to prospective weak- 
nesses. Granted that the philosophic dualism is solved, will 
abstraction cease here ] Be it conceded that man, both body 
and soul, is a material substance, then a new set of philoso- 
phers will spring up with the proof that he is the deadest 
of all material substances, there being no mind or motion in 
him. Be it proved, on the other hand, that man is ail spirit, 
there being no such a thing as matter, then sophists will arise 
with infallible proofs that he is merely the shadow of a spirit 
that ideas are the ghosts of men's souls. Granted that a 
conciliation occurs, the soul living in perfect harmony with 
the body, then the logical conclusion must certainly follow, 
namely, that body and soul are so intimately related that no 
force, human or divine, can rend them asunder ; that death is 



therefore a pure fiction; that pain, poverty, disease, &c., are 
idols of our diseased imagination, so that the poor should be 
contented with their lot wherever it may be cast. Granted, 
again, that philosophers find the object of their chase, namely, 
the First Cause, they will then begin to wonder what this 
elephantine Atlas stands on to ease the soles of his weary 
feet. Granted even once more that our philosophers are a 
unit in the belief that happiness, or any other abstract 
quality, is the chief end of man, then real discord first begins. 
What is happiness ? a question on which no two individuals 
can aoree, not to mention the various bemuddled schools of 

O ' 

philosophy. All this goes to show that there is no end to 
abstract processes, and that through them no practical results 
can ever be attained- nothing to make us wiser or better 

I shall not, however, dwell upon the positive weaknesses 
of abstract methods, believing that I have a good case in the 
negative side of the question that after thousands of years 
of profound investigation and sanguinary conflicts opinions 
are growing more divergent, and that the times are ripe for 
the adoption of another basis, there being only one other, 
namely, the scientific, concrete, or mathematical. It is now 
my duty to preserve religion and philosophy from utter ruin 
by solving the dualism of subjectivity and objectivity. 

Referring to my remarks on axioms, it is here in place to 
establish the first of my series, viz. : 

AXIOM I. No structure, no function ; no function, no struc- 

Deductions. If our race perish structurally, the human soul 
perishes also. If our race had never existed structurally, the 
human soul would never have existed. 

I confine the functions to the soul because, although 
Christians have denied that there is any essential connection 
between the soul and the body, it has never been-denied that 
our other functions e.g., wisdom, happiness, strength, virtue, 
vitality, motion, &c. can exist without structural man. If it 
be asserted that any one or more of the above-enumerated 
qualities are functions of the soul, then we are fixed in one 
of two positions : (i) that the soul is a material substance, 


or (2) that such a condition exists as the function of a func- 
tion. It is not necessary for me to assert or deny any one of 
these positions ; my duty is to adhere to method. My posi- 
tion is this, that the theory of the structure possessing any- 
thing beyond a function has proved a failure, and that such 
a condition, if it exists, is beyond the range of science. The 
assumption of this condition, if varying results in scientific 
inquiry be thereby produced, would put an end to all scientific 
investigation. The above axiom must be criticised from the 
scientific, not from the abstract, standpoint. 

If a man suddenly lose his life without violence to his body, 
the structures are left, but the functions are gone. When the 
body is resolved into dust, the structure disappears as such, 
although no matter or force becomes annihilated. Again, a 
living structure may change its function, which, if the change 
be not too violent, causes also in process of time a correspond- 
ing structural change ; but if the structure ceases to exercise 
its natural function, or assume some new function, it is only 
a matter of time when the structure will disappear. The 
same law applies to an inefficient exercise of function, by 
which the structure becomes atrophied, thus deteriorating in 
size, weight, and strength ; but in this case a greater period 
of time is demanded for the disappearance of the structure. 
The discontinuance of any vital function ends in the de- 
struction of all the bodily structures and functions. By 
exercising the structure to its fullest capacity without strain, 
the maximum degree of development is attained, providing 
the exact quantity and quality of nutriment necessary for 
such a purpose be supplied, and the structure then gains in 
size, weight, health, and strength. 



IN the previous chapters we have been discussing abstractions 
and revelations, and those who still have faith in such pro- 
cesses will do well to follow me in this chapter of abstrac- 
tions and negations, in the hope that some redeeming feature 
may be realised. 

Although, in its highly-developed form, economics is a 
young theory compared with religion and philosophy, and has 
not yet had time to unfold so many fallacies and divergent 
schools of thought, yet I feel confident that a brief survey of 
the origin and development of political economy will enable 
us to place reliance on the negative side of the argument, as 
I have done with philosophy, although I shall also point out 
many positive weaknesses. By this method, namely, showing 
the absence of unity and harmony amongst our economists, 
I hope to be able to dispense with apologies for shifting the 
basis from the abstract to the concrete. 

In the solution of social problems the mind naturally tends 
to gravitate towards economics, wealth being the mainspring 
of our actions, and the power in and behind our throne. 
Economicism holds within its iron grasp both the Church and 
the State, and has absorbed science and philosophy. 

Going back to the most ancient history, we have little to 
learn in economics from the Oriental Theocracies, and to draw 
a sharp line between the economics and theology of that 
period would be a laborious task. For the first principles of 
economics, as well as of philosophy, we must return to ancient 
Greece, and even there, where politics, economics, ethics, and 
theology were all united in the State, a clear separation is 

practically impossible. What we do know is that, in ancient 



as well as in modern times, there have been slaves and free- 
men call them Plebeians and Patricians, Roundheads and 
Cavaliers, Whigs and Tories, if you like and there have 
been in all ages economic disturbances, class privileges and 
abuses, riches and poverty ; priests and landlords plundering 
the poor and then returning a portion of the booty in the 
shape of alms ; oppressive taxation, fiscal and military annoy- 
ances, and all the other great incidents which combine in 
developed form to build up our modern civilisations. It does 
not alter the principle to say that ancient or mediaeval slavery 
was of the militant or chattel kind, while modern slavery is 

The principles of political economy were well known to 
the ancient Greeks, but not in a systematic form ; and they 
became so entangled with the political institutions that the 
historian cannot easily locate the abuses of those times. Pro- 
perty, not being safe under a spirit of military aspirations, did 
not tend to accumulate and develop into capitalistic sove- 
reignty, as in our day ; and it belonged, as a rule, to the State. 
The public exchequer was the source of revenue for every 
individual or family in the State, and in the main this fund 
was maintained by slave labour. The moral impulse, as well 
as the " filthy lucre," emanated from the same external source 
the State ; but the coin was theoretically to be devoted to 
the high and moral aims of the public, and not to be esteemed 
for the sake of personal enjoyment. There was an Athenian 
doctrine that no citizen should want ; but this political 
theory, carried into practice, was productive of idle and 
improvident citizens. Foreign trade was discountenanced and 
discouraged, although the Athenians derived revenues from 
custom duties as well as from mines and public domains. Like 
modern nations, the Greeks delighted in taxing foreigners; 
and although they had their tithes, they had no door or 
window tax, and had a strong antipathy against laud and 
personal taxes. Smuggling was quite a common practice, 
and manufacture was discouraged. Xenophon held that most 
of the manual arts tended to deform the body; and Plato, 
himself a great athlete in his youth, was as clear as Adam 
Smith on the advantages and disadvantages of the division. 



of labour in manufacturing industrialism. Aristotle, in har- 
mony with other Greek thinkers, was a physiocrat, believing 
that in agriculture and kindred arts reposed the real dig- 
nity of labour, and these were the truly productive employ- 
ments. Xenophon, in direct opposition to the adherents of 
our modern Mercantile System, did not believe that the ex- 
port of money, which mainly consisted of gold and silver, in 
exchange for commodities, would impoverish the community ; 
and Plato forbade the obtaining of interest for the use of 
money, even the repayment of the principal being left to 
the option of the borrower. There were laws against usury, 
monopoly, and money speculators. The Greeks were strict 
Malthusians, not from fear of the failure of the means of 
subsistence, but on moral and political grounds ; and for the 
purpose of restricting population, early marriages were pro- 
hibited, means also being taken for the prevention or destruc- 
tion of births. It is not reasonable to suppose that economic 
theories could enjoy a high state of development amongst a 
people who condemned economicism. 

Amongst the Romans there was a dearth of economists, as 
well as of philosophers, their time being fully occupied in the 
development of their military and political institutions, but 
they paid considerable attention to agriculture, which was 
chiefly prosecuted on large estates by slaves acquired through 
conquest. Their social and economic ideas were essentially 
Grecian. Industry and commerce were regarded as degrading 
occupations, unworthy of free citizens. Pliny preferred barter 
to the use of gold as a medium of exchange ; and both he and 
Cicero advocated the prevention of the exportation of money. 
Interest was fixed by law, and money-lending was regarded as 
an odious occupation. 

The mission of the civilised world during the Middle Age* 
was the elaboration of ecclesiasticism and feudalism, there 
being no room for the development of manufacture and trade, 
and even agriculture lagged behind. As amongst the ancient 
Greeks, a large portion of the wealth was squandered in the 
maintenance of ecclesiastical ceremonies; and a large per- 
centage of the remainder was wasted in supporting a large 
body of retainers under feudal customs. At a later period, 


however, the Crusades gave a stimulus to international trade. 
The Church preached the virtues of industry, thrift, obedience, 
the dignity of labour, and almsgiving, but discouraged trade, 
because it led to the perpetration of frauds. Attempts were 
made to fix the prices of commodities by law, interest was 
forbidden, and slavery was transformed into serfdom. The 
serf, though tied to the soil, enjoyed certain religious and 
domestic privileges. Money played an insignificant role, and 
wages were mainly paid in produce. The goods were mostly 
made in the dwelling-houses for consumption by the family, 
not for sale. People usually consumed only such products as 
were raised on their own land and prepared in their own 
houses. Tradesmen either worked in the houses of the con- 
sumers, or made goods to order in their own houses, and were 
usually paid in produce. Indeed, the officials, literary men, 
artists, poets, &c., who served the great landlords, enjoyed 
board, residence, and clothing from their patrons, or received 
a piece of land, with free help, from which they obtained 
their subsistence. Even the taxes were paid in produce and 
services. The farmer, for example, gave a portion of his pro- 
duce to his landlord, and worked at occasional intervals for 
him on the estate, or was employed in making roads. The 
landlord, instead of paying taxes directly to his superior lord, 
the king, rendered military services when necessary without 
compensation. During these times there were no great com- 
manders or standing armies, and the authority of the superior 
lords was comparatively limited. The great landlords in- 
herited the offices of judge, military chief, governor, chief of 
police, tax-collector, &c., within their respective circuits, com- 
prising a greater or less number of towns and villages, but 
received no reward for their services, and it was very difficult, 
or even impossible, for the superior lords to remove them. 
The latter, again, were subordinate to kings. There were 
trade guilds, who regulated all the affairs between employers 
and employed. They decided the number of apprentices, the 
methods of working, kinds of tools, inspectorships, length of 
working day, &c. ; they partly made joint-purchases of the 
raw materials, and joint-sales of the finished products, con- 
ducted insurances, dispensed charities, &c. They built a sort 


of State within the State, and made their own laws, the laws 
of the State being very restricted, and carried out to the letter 
the motto, "Each for all, and all for each." 

Such, then, briefly expressed, was the condition of our 
ancestors previous to the breaking out of modern civilisation, 
ushered in by the sovereignty of the Mercantile System, the 
rule of money, the marvellous development of economic 
theories, and all the other blessings which have crowned 
the nineteenth century with the precious jewels of " liberty, 
equality, and fraternity." 

The strict adherents of the school of political economy 
known as the Mercantile System, which attained the height of 
its development about the middle of the seventeenth cen- 
tury, taught that money and wealth were identical. 

Money was always in universal demand, and gave the 
possessor power to purchase all other commodities. It was 
therefore the duty of the State to resort to all possible expe- 
dients prohibitions, duties, bounties, restrictions, &c. for 
the purpose of retaining in the country as much of the pre- 
cious metals as possible, thus bringing about a favourable 
balance of trade. The more moderate mercantilists, however, 
whatever their private opinions might have been, did not ex- 
press themselves so radically with reference to the identity 
of money and wealth. The Mercantile school assumed the 
responsibility of teaching the governments what course they 
should pursue in order to make the nation rich in the means 
of subsistence, and consequently also populous. A country 
which pursued agriculture alone could not, without manufac- 
turing industries, develop the resources of the country and 
the faculties of its inhabitants, and it must therefore remain 
poor and sparsely populated. It was, therefore, the duty of 
the State to open up industries and commerce, and furnish 
the inhabitants with employment, thus procuring for them- 
selves the means of subsistence, instead of depending upon 
other countries through the importation of foreign produc- 
tions. The importation of foreign commodities was to be 
prevented, or rendered as difficult and precarious as possible, 
by heavy import duties, while exportations were to be encour- 
aged by freedom from such restrictions and the granting of 
bounties except raw materials, the exportation of which 
was to be limited by the imposition of export duties, the im- 
portation thereof being facilitated by exemption from taxa- 


tion, thereby causing the home-manufactured articles to be 
cheap and the foreign articles dear. The same policy was to 
be pursued with reference to grain, by which the labourers 
could live and work more cheaply, thus producing cheaper 
articles for export. Special concern was to be exercised by 
the State that the balance of trade was favourable, namely, 
that more money was imported than exported. The export 
of gold and silver, coined or uncoined, was to be rendered as 
difficult as possible ; the import, however, to be correspond- 
ingly encouraged. There was to be no economic wall between 
different parts of the same country. 

There are three features in this economic school on which 
I desire to lay special stress, being of great importance in 
connection with this inquiry, namely: (i) the politicians of 
the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries undertook to enrich 
the nations in the manner prescribed by the economic theo- 
rists ; (2) the encouragment given to population to enjoy 
the immense wealth to be produced ; and (3) the discourage- 
ment of agricultural pursuits and agricultural knowledge. 

The immediate result of Mercantilism was the abolition 
of the feudal system of economy, the conversion of agricul- 
tural into manufacturing and commercial communities, and a 
strengthening and centralising of the governments. Power- 
ful and populous cities sprang into existence, demands for 
men and money for the maintenance of standing armies and 
religious wars were increased, Court extravagance, political 
patronage, and public officials attained an extraordinary ex- 
treme, and, owing to the dwindling of the royal domains, 
taxation grew very oppressive. Politicians saw that this 
system tended to increase their powers, and they gladly un- 
dertook the control of industries, or granted monopolies to 
privileged corporations, and the trade of colonies was restricted 
to the mother-country. The landlords, losing interest in 
their avocation, were drawn to the great centres of luxury 
and pleasure, where the profits of agriculture were squan- 
dered ; and the rulers, driven to extremes of pride and prodi- 
gality, resorted to debasement of the currency to maintain 
their royal dignity at the expense of the toiling masses. 
Naturally enough, these theories were formulated into a 
science (!) by the literary and philosophic geniuses of the 


day. Prominent amongst the European rulers who adopted 
the Mercantile System may be mentioned Cromwell, Charles 
V., and the French Minister Colbert. In a milder form, 
Mercantilism rules the civilised world to-day, and is not yet 
extinct in Britain. 

Amongst the early opponents of the Mercantile System 
may be mentioned Sir Dudley North, 1 who taught that wealth 
might exist independent of gold or silver, its true source 
being human industry either in agriculture or manufacture. 
He acknowledged, however, that the precious metals played 
an important part in the wealth of a nation. Trade stag- 
nation, he taught, arose not from a lack of money, but from 
a glutted market, a disturbance in foreign commerce, or a 
restricted consumption occasioned by poverty. The export 
of money tended to increase, not to diminish, the national 
wealth. No nation could become rich by State regulations ; 
peace, industry, and freedom were the sources of prosperity. 

Locke, although stoutly resisting the debasement of the 
currency, was strongly imbued with the virtues of Mercan- 
tilism. He regarded a fall in land rent as a sure indication 
of a decline in national wealth. 

Like the philosophic and religious dualism discussed in 
the previous chapters, we now find, as an identical law, an 
economic dualism. When one extreme is about to be reached, 
there can only be suicide or reaction. The reactionary 
phase of the Mercantile System is Physiocratism, the Physio- 
crats deriving their name from two Greek words meaning 
natural law, which they regarded as the basis of their system 
like the motto of the Stoics : Live harmoniously with 
nature. This new French school of economics adopted the 
motto : Laissez faire the Geschehen-und Gewdhrenlassen of the 
Germans which is faintly expressed by our phrase, State 
non-interference; or, as we put it, State interference. It 
means, when applied to economics, that the State should not 
interfere with the industrial or domestic affairs of the nation, 
that trade should be left to flow in its natural channels. This 
dualism of Mercantilism and Physiocratism is identified with 
that of Socialism and Individualism of the present day, the 

1 Discourses upon Trade, 1691. 


curiosity of which is that the individualistic aristocracy of 
to-day were the Socialists a century and a half ago. The 
Physiocrats proper only taught the Laissez faire doctrine at 
first ; but there was another school known as the Agrarians, 
who espoused the cause of agriculture, the two schools having 
been united by Quisnay (1694-1774), physician to Louis XV., 
who spent his early days in agricultural pursuits. Gournay 
(1712-1759), the most distinguished founder of the Physio- 
cratic school, was a merchant and a mercantile philosopher. 
The economic development just prior to this period consisted 
mainly in the division of banking and commerce into separate 
branches, and the extended use of machinery. Pierre Bois- 
guillebert taught repeatedly and with great emphasis that 
national wealth did not consist in gold and silver, but in 
utilities for consumption, the greatest of all being agricultural 
products, and that State interference did more harm than 
good. Marshal Vauben, appalled at the deplorable condition 
of the labouring classes, taught that it was the duty of 
the State to promote the welfare of all classes of the com- 
munity; that labour was the basis of all wealth, of which 
agricultural labour was the most important; and that all 
unprovoked restrictions on manufacture and commerce should 
be removed, protesting at the same time against the privileges 
and exemptions enjoyed by people of high social standing. 
This was the condition of affairs in' France when the Physio- 
crats systematised their doctrines, which, briefly expressed, 
are as follows : 

The State had no moral right to do more than protect its 
subjects from attack, and enable them to enjoy the fruits of 
their own labour and that of their fathers. Agriculture was 
the only productive industry. Although trade and the other 
industries were not productive, yet they were useful so long 
as they served agriculture, and made no higher profits than 
enabled them to do greater services to agriculture without 
enriching themselves. Only those occupations were produc- 
tive through which those means were obtained from which 
men could live, and then only so far as such occupations pro- 
duced more than was required to enable the workers to live 
and continue their operations. The extent of the world's 
population depended upon the quantity of food, fuel, clothing, 


&c., produced from year to year. How many others besides 
the tillers of the soil could live depended upon the quantity of 
the necessaries of life produced by the farmers after supporting 
themselves and making provision for the continuance of their 
operations. This surplus determined the number of landlords, 
merchants, tradesmen, manufacturers, professional men, &c., 
who could live. By free-trade, under the influence of free 
competition, commodities commanded their natural prices, 
namely, such prices as covered the cost of production, enabled 
the producers to continue their operations, and educate their 
families for the same employments as their parents. Labourers 
would then also not receive more or less wages the natural 
wages than enabled them to obtain the means of subsistence, 
and educate their families for the same class of work. Mer- 
chants would also, in consequence of free competition, only 
receive sufficient profit to enable them to continue their 
business and bring up their children in mercantile pursuits. 
Only the landlords enjoyed special privileges, and were 
enabled to live in luxury and ease, because it was not possible 
for them to have free competition, so that they were not 
reduced to the bare means of subsistence. They should there- 
fore pay all the taxes, and fill all the higher offices of State, 
civil and military, without compensation. In a naturally 
regulated State there should only be one form of taxation, 
namely, a direct levy on ground rent. 

The Physiocrats made little impression in Britain, have not 
been highly favoured in Germany, have never attained much 
influence even in France, where they originated, and their 
doctrines have played no part in the creation of the existing 
condition of our social affairs, either on the Eastern or the 
Western hemisphere. This fact may be attributed to the 
poverty, ignorance, and depression of the agricultural masses, 
who have therefore been unable to study their own interests ; 
and their calling, having been pursued by slaves and serfs, 
was brought into disrepute. 

The dualism is now complete, namely, economicism and 
agriculture. It is a struggle for the supremacy of luxuries on 
the one hand, and of the necessities and necessaries of life on 
the other. The economist makes manufacture and trade the 
basis of national prosperity, and the physiocrat takes agricul- 
ture as the basis. 


Before passing on to the next economic era, a word is due 
to Hume, as it has been to Locke, in order to show that 
economic theories have been moulded by philosophic thought, 
which is the direct reverse of scientific methods of thinking. 


Hume, although repudiating the Mercantile school so far as it 
confounded money with wealth, was generally an adherent of 
Mercantilism, and he was a moderate advocate of protection 
to home industries, although condemning extremes in this 
direction. He repudiated the single tax on ground rent as 
advocated by the Physiocrats. 

Another distinguished predecessor of Adam Smith, Dean 
Tucker, although supporting Free-trade doctrines, favoured 
bounties on exported goods, and upheld the encouragement of 
population by a tax on celibacy. 

The next revolution in economicism was the Free-trade 
theories of Adam Smith (1723-1790), a Scotch philosopher 
and theologian, who, like the ancient Greeks, mixed up theo- 
logy, ethics, politics, and economics. His theories may be 
summed up as follows : 

The idea of wealth was to be found more in industry 
diligence in agriculture, manufacture, and commerce than in 
the soil and in nature. Those occupations were productive 
which gave the raw material of nature an exchange value and 
a market price. But those occupations which only rendered 
personal or intellectual service those of teachers, lawyers, 
doctors, judges, &c. were not productive in the economic 
sense. The increase of national prosperity consisted essen- 
tially in the growth of diligence, dexterity, and skill. The 
extent to which the division of labour could be carried 
depended on the extent and purchasing power of the market. 
The trading instinct of man led to the division of labour. 
The main conditions in the development of industry were 
security of person and property, perfect industrial and com- 
mercial freedom both internal trade and foreign commerce 
and the equipment of labour with capital i.e., supplies of 
food, raw material, &c., and especially tools and machinery. 
Capital could only originate through saving the withholding 
from immediate consumption a portion of the products and 
employing them in further productive operations. Men ren- 
dered greater services to their fellows through the system 
of bargain and sale than through philanthropic motives. Self- 


interest was the surest incentive to diligence. The greater 
the competition, the greater the incentive and necessity to 
undersell competitors in order to retain custom. Utility 
alone, or value in use, did not decide what quantity of one 
article was exchangeable for another: those articles which 
essentially had exchange value were the products of labour. 
So long as landlords existed, as well as labourers, the labourer 
could not get the full produce, or the full exchange value, of 
his labour. Without working himself, the landlord received 
a portion of the products of labour for permission to use the 
land, even when it remained in its original, uncultivated con- 
dition. The price of the products must then, in addition to 
the wages, yield a ground rent, before production could be 
carried on. When people accumulated capital from their 
sparings, wherewith they employed labourers, then a portion 
of the total produce, or its price, fell to the capitalist as capital 
profit. This was divided into two parts : (i) the actual profit 
for the man who invested the capital at his own risk, and 
(2) the interest for the leaner of the capital. By the law of 
free competition, there existed a mean condition to which the 
prices of the goods, as well as the profits, converged. When 
the prices or profits were high, fresh capital and labour rushed 
in until the surplus profits disappeared. On the other hand, 
when prices and profits were below the level, capital and 
labour forsook the occupation. The extent of population was 
largely determined by the demand for labourers. The number of 
the labour population determined the death-rate amongst that 
class, particularly of children. When wages for a considerable 
length of time (fifteen to twenty years) remained under the 
margin of subsistence, the numbers sank, largely through the 
death-rate amongst children, the results of bad and insufficient 
nourishment also through reduction of families grounded. 
For a long period the wages could not, therefore, remain below 
the margin which enabled the labourers to exist, and raise 
children for working purposes. High wages were desirable, 
for the labourers numbered the largest portion of the popula- 
tion, and good food and care were promotive of working 
efficiency ; so that, also, excessive diligence, as by job-work, 
was injurious to the labouring classes, reducing their numbers. 
In sympathy with the prosperity of the nation, both wages 
and rent rose, while profit and interest sank. In periods of 
national adversity wages and rent sank, while profit and 
interest rose. The interests of the labourers and the land- 
lords therefore harmonised with the interests of the nation ; 
for all conditions which increased the prosperity of a nation 


enlianced rent and wages, and all the conditions which opposed 
the nation lowered rent and wages. On the other hand, the 
interests of the capitalists were opposed to those of the nation, 
for profit and interest sank when prosperity increased, and 
rose in times of national adversity. All labourers' unions 
were detrimental to the interests of the State, even though 
they were only intended to support impoverished members 
and like objects, because they acted injuriously to the interests 
of the consumers, and led to an increased price of the products 
of labour. It was the duty of the State to raise by import 
duties such sums as were required to maintain its military 
strength, and to encourage educational institutions, ship- 
building, fisheries, &c. 

It will be observed that Adam Smith's school of political 
economy is physiocratic, but not agrarian ; and, by a cursory 
inspection, it may be inferred that Smithism is an attempt 
to conciliate the dualism of economicism and agricolism the 
agricolo-economic dualism. Such inference, however, is a 
misconception. Smith bases national prosperity on manu- 
facture and trade, and his belief is that economicism can be 
better promoted through Free-trade than through Mercan- 
tilism. Free-trade is the subjective phase of economicism, 
Mercantilism the objective phase. Previous to Adam Smith, 
the old Physiocrats taught that God had so adjusted nature 
that, if her laws were left undisturbed, all men could live on 
the earth in a state of concord and prosperity. 

The next great magnet in the sphere of economics is the 
Rev. T. R. Malthus (1766-1834), the reputed father of 
Malthusianism. This distinguished theologian also, as a dis- 
ciple of the school of discord, defended the landlords against 
the reproach that they enriched themselves at the expense of 
the labouring classes, and were the cause of so much misery 
in the world. His theories may be briefly summed up thus : 

The greater the population the greater was the difficulty 
in procuring the means of subsistence. The prices of grain 
must then rise, and those portions of land which were specially 
productive must also rise in value and bring more reiit. 
However, while it became more difficult to produce food, 
luxuries and other products of industry were more easily 
increased. It was not, therefore, the high rents of the laud- 


lords and the luxuries of the rich that were the cause of the 
misery of the masses. The source of the evil lay in over- 
population, or in the laws of nature which caused the means 
of subsistence to lag behind the requirements of the people 
that " population increased in a geometrical, food in an arith- 
metical, ratio ; " so that it was the duty of everybody to become 
conscious of the fact, and fulfil the duty of ceasing to found a 
family till he had acquired a sufficiency for their support, or 
had prospects sufficiently bright to maintain his family. This 
check to over-population was to be brought about by " moral 
restraint " abstinence from marriage till late in life. He 
who. brought children into the world without ample provision 
for their subsistence should be left to stern retribution, and, 
owing to such a miserable ambition to defeat the laws of God, 
both he and his family should be doomed to suffer the terrible 

At the present day we have a theory under the name of 
Neo-Malthusianism, which was not dreamt of by Malthus, and 
is a natural outcome of the development of luxury. Marriage, 
like all other luxuries, must now be indulged in by all classes, 
and the idea of preventing conception after marriage is now 
entertained as a remedy for over-population increasing the 
number of early marriages and limiting the number of births 
by artificial arrangements. Mill's theory was post-nuptial 
continence, which was also remote from the mind of Malthus. 
Another school of modern economists, notably the Socialists, 
hold that food tends to increase faster than population, that 
man's power over nature increases faster than any possible 
increase of population. The distinguished economist, Senior, 
was also an anti-Malthusian. These theorists blame monopoly 
for the existence of apparent over-population. 

The essential character of the next shift in political economy 
is the Wage-fund theory, associated with concord by David 
liicardo (1772-1823). In this economist we find the practical 
business man, the speculator in stocks, therefore not the 
philosopher or theologian, although his mind was biassed by 
the abstract methods of his predecessors. 

He agreed with Malthus with reference to the cause of 
misery amongst the labouring classes and the source of rent. 
Although his theories harmonised in the main with those of 
Adam Smith, especially elaborating the theory that labour 


was the source of value, yet he attempted to show that the 
landlords became enriched without rendering suitable services 
in return, and that the interests of the capitalists apd those 
of the working-classes harmonised. By the operations of 
nature's laws, wages, in the long-run, could not be higher 
than would enable the labourers to perpetuate their class 
without increasing the numbers. The misery of this class 
could only be eradicated when capital in general (outfit of 
raw material, tools, machinery, &c.) and the wage-fund (the 
means of subsistence for the labourer) could be increased 
more rapidly than the labouring classes, or when these classes 
proportionately increased their numbers. It was the capitalists 
who created the wage-fund by their sparings, from which the 
labourers were enabled to subsist. The more the population 
increased, the greater was the tendency to bring less fruitful 
soils under cultivation. The cost required to produce grain 
under the most unfavourable conditions at a given time 
determined the price thereof. In more favoured localities a 
surplus over and above the cost of production was returned, 
which fell to the landlord as rent, even when he did not 
work himself and only permitted the tenant to use the land. 
The greater the increase of population the higher the price of 
grain, and the higher the rent of the landlords. The State 
should therefore suppress those influences which tended to 
raise rent, such as import duties on grain, and should em- 
barrass rent as much as possible, whereby, in the interests 
of the working-classes, the capitalists would be free from 
burdens ; for the more they were relieved from burdens, the 
greater grew the capital, and consequently the wage-fund 

Amongst the opponents of the wage-fund theory may be 
mentioned Professor Jevons, who regards it as " illusory " 
except that " it may have a certain limited and truthful 
application ; " and Henry George, who repudiates it peremp- 
torily and without compunction, contending that the labourers 
are supported from the produce of their labour, and not from 
capital. Amongst the earlier economists who opposed the 
Avage-fund theory may be mentioned CliiFe Leslie and F. D. 

It will have been observed that the Smithian and Mal- 
thusian theories favoured the landlords, while the Ricardian 
favoured the capitalists, and the trinity were a unit on the 



theories of population and free-trade. Eicardo's system of 
economics was expounded and elaborated by John Stuart 
Mill, the distinguished logician and Utilitarian philosopher, 
and also by Professor Cairnes, a disciple of Mill. This vir- 
tually closes economic orthodoxy in England, although my 
inquiry impels me to notice a new school, which I shall do 
later on. 

The capitalists found other champions of their cause in 
America and Continental Europe. 

This school, known as Protectionists, taught that it was the 
duty of the State and it therefore exercised the right to 
foster home industry by a tariff imposed on foreign goods 
entering the country, thus lessening the competition of home 
producers, who suffered through importation of the cheaper 
goods from abroad. Such a policy would have the effect of 
embarrassing importations and of giving employment and food 
to many people in their own country, instead of depending 
upon articles from abroad, which could, through encourage- 
ment, soon be produced more cheaply at home. The free- 
trade theorem, namely, "Buy where cheap, and sell where 
dear," did not always work ; and the manufacturers should 
receive encouragement until their business was so far deve- 
loped that they could compete with foreign countries without 
protection. Free-trade was only justifiable so long as the 
country enjoyed a strong exporting power, which enabled it 
to conduct its commercial operations without being endangered 
by foreign competition. 

The great champion of the Protectionist school in America 
was Henry C. Carey (1793-1879), a publisher, who taught 
the following theories : 

It was a law of nature that the ability of a given species of 
animals to increase its numbers was so much the greater the 
lower it was in the scale of existence. On the contrary, the 
higher the species in the scale of perfection, the less rapidly 
it multiplied. The lower the animal existence, the more it 
served as food for the higher animals ; so that it was a fallacy 
to contend that man was ordained, unless he limited his off- 
spring, to increase more rapidly than he had ability to find 
the means of subsistence in a corresponding ratio. It was an 
error to maintain that the production of the necessary means 
of subsistence became more difficult as the population increased. 


The contrary would be the case if education and intelligence 
to produce co-operatively also increased. More shepherds 
could live on a square mile, and live more luxuriously, than 
rambling hunters, and more farmers than shepherds. The 
greater the population the greater the control which man had 
over nature, and the more easily could the means of sub- 
sistence be obtained. Through increased population, there 
was not a movement from better to worse soils, as taught by 
Mai thus and Ricardo, but the reverse was the case; for just 
as progress was made from bad to better methods, so also 
there was a movement from bad to better soils, from which 
the means of subsistence could be obtained with less cost and 
in greater abundance. In opposition to Smith and Ricardo, 
he taught that rent was nothing else than interest on capital. 
The land in many under-populated regions was to be had for 
nothing, and for which no rent was paid. When land through 
centuries of expenditure of capital became rich, then a high 
rent was naturally demanded for the use of the soil ; but this 
interest was by no means an ample return for the capital sunk 
in the soil at the current rate during the given period. In 
nature there was no incongruity between the wants of the 
growing population and the possibility of increasing the means 
of subsistence, so that there could be no discord amongst the 
interests of the landlords, the capitalists, and the labourers. 
Measured by the amount, wages and capital, as well as rent, 
grew with the increase of wealth ; but reckoned in percentage 
of the total amount of the national production, wages were 
ever on the increase, while rent and interest sank deeper and 
deeper. An ever-increasing portion of the products went to 
labour ; an ever-diminishing portion to possession. 

In France, the theories of Adam Smith made a deep im- 
pression upon the minds of the economists Say and Sismondi, 
while the concord theories of Carey impressed the economist 
Bastiat, who, however, was an extreme Free-trader. In Ger- 
many, Smith made little impression at first, but latterly his 
theories caused a good deal of criticism, and received some 
acceptation in modified forms ; but the German economist, 
Hagen, arrived at the same conclusions as those entertained 
by Carey's school of concord. 

The lack of scientific method amongst the economic theo- 
rists is now made plain. The ancient Greek philosophers, 
who are the divinities of modern speculative thinkers, recog- 


nised agriculture to be the basis of national wealth, and the 
same view was held by the Physiocrats. Instead of solving 
this dualism of economicism and agricolism, or making any 
serious attempts to do so, the economists split up their 
theories into a number of petty, interior dualisms e.g., free- 
trade and protection, concord and discord, wage-fund arid 
anti-wage-fund, labour versus money as the standard of value, 
&c. and during all this time agriculture was allowed to shift 
for itself. The minor dualisms can never be conciliated until 
the ulterior dualism is solved, and even this may be of no avail 
so long as the ultimate dualism remains unsolved. No solu- 
tion having been offered by the speculative thinkers, it was 
left to the operations of the laws of nature, and, in the next 
economic wave, we find the results of the dualism being 
coerced to its bold extremity, just as we traced the reactionary 
process in our religio-philosophic inquiry. 

Economic agencies forced abundance into the hands of 
the oligarchic few, while it robbed the democratic many of 
adequate necessaries. In order to restore the equilibrium, a 
new economic force appeared, wrought into a system under 
the name of Scientific Socialism. This school had three dis- 
tinguished founders, namely, Rodbertus, Marx, and Lassalle 
men of profound learning in jurisprudence and economics, and 
of extraordinary force of character, whose aim was to move 
and lift the masses. The two last named were also great 
philosophers, and being of Jewish extraction, naturally felt 
the pangs of oppression very keenly, the Jews being a race 
who for many centuries have suffered acutely for the shocking 
crime of adhering to the worship of their remotest ancestors, 
and for the profound subjectivity of the Semitic character. 
This school has now won a page in all the leading works on 
political economy, and its platform is, briefly, as follows : 

Wealth consisted of values (utilities). Only those goods 
had value which were the products of labour ; and the quantity 
of labour, at the given term and under the given methods, 
determined the value of the product. In the economic sense, 
only those people were producers who, by the direct applica- 
tion of their muscular and nervous powers, aided in producing 
values. Only those who actually laboured were producers. 


Landlords and capitalists all those who lived from rents, 
loans, stocks, and other incomes were not producers; they 
did not work, did not produce, but consumed, values the 
products of other people's labour. Artists, scholars, poets, 
doctors, judges, &c., were in reality not producers, but were 
useful members of society, and deserved to be rewarded by 
the producers. So long as the soil and other sources of pro- 
duction remained private property, and wages were regulated 
by free competition, the labourers could not receive more 
from the total produce of their labour than was necessary to 
live, work, and bring up their families for work. Under the 
control of these agencies panics must prevail, and a portion 
of the labouring classes must be without food and work, de- 
spite the false theories with reference to over-population as 
taught by the Malthusians. According to the principles of 
right and reason, and in sympathy with sound economics, 
land and capital should, in some way, become the property of 
the State (society, the producers) such as by expropriation 
with little or no compensation. State officers should be ap- 
pointed to conduct all the industrial enterprises in such a 
manner as post-offices, railways, joint-stock companies, co- 
operative associations, &c., were now conducted. There would 
then be no rents or free incomes, and the producer would be 
rewarded by the receipt of such a proportion of the total pro- 
ducts as represented the produce of his labour. 

The founding and developing of this school tend to sub- 
jugate the interior and inferior dualisms of our orthodox 
economists, and of necessity a new dualism must be created, 
the opposing force now being Individualism, the great cham- 
pion being Mr. Herbert Spencer, our evolutionary philosopher. 
The policy of the Individualists is to thwart the progress of 
Socialism. They give the individual the utmost freedom, 
consistent with equal freedom on the part of others, for the 
exercise of his faculties, and limit the functions of the State 
to the protection of life, liberty, and property, and the ad- 
ministration of justice. They are practically a property de- 
fence association, the members being composed of men of 
property. In England, the Socialists belong mainly to the 
masses, excepting some learned bodies such as the Positivists ; 
but on the Continent, the school includes many professional 
men " Socialists of the Chair " and the Socialistic tendency 


in all countries is strongly atheistic, while the leanings of the 
Individualists are theistic, although not always ecclesiastic. 

An exception to the more orthodox Socialistic school, how- 
ever, is found in Christian Socialism, a sect largely influenced 
by two English clergymen, F. D. Maurice and the late Charles 
Kingsley, who, according to Rev. H. C. Shuttleworth, " claims 
to be the result of applying Christ's teaching to national, 
social, and commercial life, and not merely to personal con- 
duct. Those who hold this view maintain that Christ said 
little as to a future state, but much of bettering the conditions 
of life in this world. They point out that He consistently 
placed the community before the individual, and taught that 
the foundation of society is brotherhood, not competition for 
profit, as now with us. Christian Socialists adopt that name 
because they believe that a really Christian society must be 
what is called socialistic." The economic theories of the 
Christian Socialists are mainly those of Henry George, a 
Christian economist, who, elaborating the principle laid down 
by Herbert Spencer, to the effect that the land belongs to the 
people, only goes so far as to nationalise the land, and, there- 
fore, not the products of the land. Mr. George maintains 
that when free access to the land can be had wages must rise, 
because the labouring classes will then resort to agriculture 
if they are dissatisfied with the wages offered them in indus- 
trial employments, thereby lessening the competition. The 
Fabian Society was founded (1884) f r the purpose of spread- 
ing Socialism amongst the educated classes. The main dif- 
ference between the Socialists and the Georgists is, that the 
programme of the former is, first of all, to nationalise the 
capital, the land being a secondary consideration so far as the 
labouring classes are concerned, and they further believe that 
land nationalisation alone will not materially, if at all, improve 
the condition of the labourers ; while the supporters of Henry 
George generally believe that the nationalisation of the land 
is an adequate remedy for all our social ills, although some 
believe that this step would, sooner or later, be followed by 
the nationalisation of all property, as advocated by the Social- 
ists. Mr. George fails to point out whether he regards agri- 
culture or trade as the basis of national prosperity, but the 


inference which I draw from his writings is that his scheme 
is for the purpose of advancing the interests of economicism. 

Neither Individualism nor Socialism, including Georgism, 
is one step in advance towards the solution of the social 
problem. Existing forces will unquestionably drive us into 
Socialism, and it may be followed by a period of peace and 
contentment, but no permanent solution can take place until 
the agricolo-economic dualism is subjugated. 

The writings of Auguste Comte (1798-1857), the founder 
of Positive Philosophy, have given origin to another system, 
which has received its highest development in Germany, 
namely, the Ilistorico- Ethical School. In proportion to the de- 
cline of the old orthodox theories which ruled from Smith to 
Cairnes, this school has been making its influence felt in Eng- 
land. Its disciples have adopted a new method of investiga- 
tion, mainly through historical comparison. It gives social and 
ethical duties precedence over individual rights, and makes 
society subject to natural laws. Its teachings are substantially 
as follows : 

It was a fallacy to suppose that a social system could be 
grounded which was equally suitable for all times, all nations, 
and all grades of culture. Any system, regarded as efficient, 
must harmonise with the requirements of the age, nation, and 
educational standard. Society was not merely a mass of in- 
dividuals and families living at a given period, but also em- 
braced many generations following each other a perpetually 
organised community, or an organism whose members were 
individuals and families. The State was not a mere medium, 
institution, or bond existing for the protection of the interests 
and liberties of the individual, but, moreover, an organisa- 
tion through which the people, the nation, formed a totality 
throughout all time, and which exerted itself in the service 
of the highest moral purposes, including the security of the 
individual against aggression in the exercise of his free moral 
development. In a healthily developed State, the economic 
adjustments should neither be entirely in the hands of the 
Government (Socialism), nor left exclusively to the devices 
of the individual (Physiocratism). The nice medium between 
the State and the individual could not be theoretically deter- 
mined once for all : the varied requirements of the times were 
the determinator. It was a fallacy to maintain that in econo- 


mic and kindred affairs only the material and selfish interests 
were to be regarded, and that the moral standpoint was to be 
left entirely to the conscience of the individual. Indeeii, 
those laws which pertained to property and intercourse should 
be based on a moral standard. Only for the sake of freedom, 
without which no moral development was possible, and touch- 
ing the dangers which attended too great a restriction of 
freedom, must much objectionable conduct be left to the 
conscience of the individual and to the morality of social 
restraint. But when danger was near, which threatened to 
demoralise many branches of industry, or to extinguish 
national life, then it became the duty and consequent right 
of the State to grasp with iron hand and regain the labour, 
the property, the commerce, the sovereignty. 1 

Much as I admire this historic school and the many able 
writers which gave it birth and guided its development, yet 
I must confess and it pains me to be obliged to do so that 
it is destined to enjoy a short career unless it extricates itself 
out of the economic category. It has earnestly espoused the 
cause of humanity, but so long as it confines its sphere to 
the conciliation of the Socialistico-Individualistic dualism, its 
brilliant anticipations can never be realised. This school is 
specially noteworthy on the ground that many competent 
authorities entertain the hope that it is destined to dethrone 
the economic orthodoxy which still holds sway. 

This summary would not be complete without noticing, 
finally, W. Stanley Jevons (1835-1882), and his relation to 
the various schools of economics. Apart from his titles, 
LL.D., M.A., F.RS., he writes as a scientific authority, 
although his native sphere seems to be philosophy and logic. 
I mention this fact because, as I have shown, there has been 
a great dearth of scientific talent amongst previous economists. 
As a mathematician of a high order, he laboured hard to 

1 Since gathering the materials for this chapter, chiefly from various 
English writers, I accidentally fell across an estimable little work entitled 
"Elements der Volkswirtschaftslehre," by Dr. W. Neurath (published by 
Julius Klinkhardt, Leipzig, 1887), from which I have made a free trans- 
lation of the above paragraph. Indeed, I am also indebted to the same 
author for much of the summary in previous portions of this chapter. 
The English mind is economic, while the German mind is scientific : this 
explains the reason why English writers cannot be understood except 
through the interpretation of German critics and reviewers. 


reduce economics to mathematical formulas, and yet he was 
also a faithful worker in the cause of the masses, which gave 
his mind a Socialistic bent. He endeavoured to bring 
economics into closer relation with the physical sciences. 
He says : " I have no hesitation in accepting the Utilitarian 
theory of morals which does uphold the effect upon the 
happiness of mankind as the criterion of what is right and 
wrong." Accordingly, he treats his system of economics as 
a " Calculus of Pleasure and Pain," and then attempts to 
reduce the vibrations of pleasure and pain to mathematical 
rules. This attempt must prove fruitless from the fact that 
the basis is an abstraction which cannot be subjected to 
definition ; and, besides, few people agree that the Utilitarian 
theories are the best in the world. Indeed, this basis does 
not shift that of the old orthodox school, namely, human 
desire ; for everybody seems to desire such things as afford 
pleasure (real or imaginary) and mitigate pain. Man, as an 
economic animal, realises pleasure in making or hoarding up 
wealth. Is this our highest ideal of happiness 1 Again, he 
is very unscientific when he says that " the present chaotic 
state of economics arises from the confusing together of 
several branches of knowledge : subdivision is the remedy." 
He has carried out this idea by burdening his mind with many 
of the petty little dualisms which I have pointed out, instead 
of taking the broad scientific view. He attributes the periodi- 
cally recurring commercial crises to the sun-spots. This seems 
like an attitude of despair. In later years he seems to have 
courted the historical school at least he saw the importance 
of utilising historical methods. He may fairly, I think, be 
classed as marking the transition stage in political economy. 
It is unquestionable that the old orthodox school cannot give 
birth to any more distinguished economists. 

My summary is now completed, and although it embraces 
only the most glaring differences of opinion, yet no apology, 
I think, will be demanded should I seek a broader basis of 
inquiry. Economics, as we have seen, is as old as philosophy, 
and the dangers of economicism were foretold by the great 
philosophers of ancient Greece, as well as by the Church 
during the Middle Ages, and yet it enjoyed its high state of 


development almost entirely through the instrumentality of 
our philosophers and theologians during the past century 
and a half. 

It is here in place to touch upon the relation between the 
ulterior and the ultimate dualism between the agricolo- 
economic and subjectivity versus objectivity although the 
development of this relation belongs to succeeding pages. 
It will be remembered that the religio-philosophic dualism 
resolved itself into subjectivity and objectivity. We find 
precisely the same law in agricolo-economicism, although 
education, individual temperament, and other forces have 
been the means of rendering it more or less obscure. The 
philosopher thinks that he can transcend the limits of nature 
or experience and penetrate the absolute, and the religionist 
feels that he is under the sway of higher powers which he 
must obey and which must be made known to him through 
revelation. In short, the former bases his knowledge upon 
abstract reasoning ; the latter upon Authority. So it is in 
the material world : there are some who, by their way of 
thinking, regard man's mission to be the exercise of his 
powers against nature, while others believe that natural laws 
should be permitted to enjoy their course, man's duty being 
to obey them. Reaction from objective extremes in philosophy 
led to Sophism, Cynicism, and Stoicism ; and in economics 
the reaction from the objective extremes of Mercantilism led 
to Physiocratism and Free-trade. In every dualism we find 
a subjective and an objective element, and sometimes, even 
in the same individual or organisation, we find the objective 
basis predominating in the moral, and the subjective in the 
material sphere, and vice versd. Socialism, for example, is 
subjective from the standpoint of humanity, and objective 
from the standpoint of economicism. To trace historically 
the waves of subjectivity and objectivity, and to solve this 
dualism by finding which one is the basis of the other, is the 
scope of this work, and herein resides the solution of the 
social problem. The dualism of objectivity and subjectivity 
may be expressed in other language, namely, man and nature. 
The question now resolves itself into this : Is man subject to 
nature, or nature subject to man 1 In a scientific inquiry, all 


supernatural agencies must be eliminated; for if man is 
impregnated with supernatural powers, the problem is already 
solved, nature then being under his dominion, and he is not 
amenable to her laws. 

Having shown the insufficiency of political economy from 
the negative point of view and I have merely pointed out 
the most glaring contradictions let us now discuss a few of 
the positive weaknesses. It is not necessary to say much about 
the orthodox school, for it has committed suicide ; and with 
reference to Socialism and Individualism, which are political 
as well as economic forces, it is first necessary to examine 
the character of the State. With reference to our financial 
dualism, monometallism and bimetallism, which is a material 
issue in the solution of the social problem, so great is the 
necessity for establishing scientific standards of value that 
I shall devote a whole chapter to the subject. It is merely 
necessary to remark here that our financial economists are 
striving to base our monetary system on the soundest prin- 
ciples of political economy, and that, as these " soundest 
principles" are fundamentally false, our financial arrange- 
ments must suffer the same fate, and totter into the dark 
abyss as a component part of the same fabric. Wealth, 
money, capital, labour, wages, interest, rent all stand or fall 
together ; they are timbers of the same structure econo- 

The early economic philosophers who held that labour was 
the measure of value showed a great weakness in not estab- 
lishing a labour-standard, instead of adhering to the standard 
of money. This failing is specially applicable to Adam 
Smith, the Christian philosopher, who drew such a sad pic- 
ture of distress and suffering amongst the labouring classes 
the people who produced all the wealth and. received empty 
stomachs for their wages. It is to be presumed that if labour 
were made the standard of value, the labourer would receive 
at least a sufficient percentage of the products of his labour 
to enable him to live and grow. Locke said that the pro- 
ducts of the earth derived " almost all their value " through 
labour. The Christians and sceptics were a unit on this 
question; for Hobbes believed that "plenty" depended on the 


labour of man. The Socialists, who feel so confidently on this 
point, are guilty of the same default. Jevons says that " value 
depends entirely upon utility " therefore not upon labour. 

Wealth, one would naturally suppose, is composed of 
values " plenty," as Hobbes puts it. This, however, is not 
the case, and on this point all economists are a unit. Senior, 
whose definition has never been disputed, confines it strictly 
to " those things which, directly or indirectly, are made the 
subjects of purchase and sale, of letting and hiring," and 
explains that such things must therefore, in the first place, 
possess " utility " be capable of affording pleasure or pre- 
venting pain. Secondly, they must be limited in supply 
(i.e., scarce!) for they would not constitute any portion 
of wealth if they could be had for nothing. Thirdty, 
" nothing is wealth that is not capable of appropriation" e.g., 
fine weather. And, fourthly, it must therefore be directly 
or indirectly transferable. Many of our orthodox economists 
neglect to define their ideas of wealth ; but it has never 
been disputed that human desire is the basis. In political 
economy,, all kinds of desires are equal, and equally moral 
so long as they produce equal increments of wealth (scarcity ?). 
Jevons, who appears to have established a different basis, 
repudiates desire and substitutes pleasure a foundation 
equally abstract in its character and he has failed to give us 
a list of those commodities which afford us pleasure, but 
which we do not desire, or those which we desire, but which 
do not afford us pleasure. By drawing this line, his shift of 
basis would be more readily comprehended. He may have 
considered it easier to invent an instrument for measuring 
our "vibrations of pleasure" than those of our desire?. 
Henry George contends that nothing can be wealth which 
is freely supplied by nature (all natural opportunities). He 
excludes such things the destruction of which would not de- 
crease the general wealth such as "bonds, mortgages, pro- 
missory notes, bank bills, or other stipulations for the transfer 
of wealth." Slaves, in his economics, are also excluded from 
the category of wealth. The various definitions of that por- 
tion of wealth called capital are too numerous and compli- 
cated to be noticed here. 


Arriving at the conclusion even more clearly, Professor 
Jevons announced "that the only hope of attaining a true 
system of economics is to fling aside, once and for ever, the 
mazy and preposterous assumptions of the Eicardian school." 
Mill, who showed that political economy was based on hypo- 
thesis, and dealt merely with " economic men," " money- 
making animals," which view was also entertained by 
Cairnes, says : " There is nothing in the law of value which 
remains for the present or any other writer to clear up ; the 
theory of the subject is complete." Senior, in 1826 and again 
in 1852, spoke of political economy as being in an imperfect 
state of development ; and M'Culloch stated that the differ- 
ences amongst the most eminent professors created a distrust 
in its conclusions, although he had confidence that the errors 
with which the science (!) was infected were rapidly disap- 
pearing. Many years ago, Torrence prophesied that in 
twenty years there would scarcely exist any doubt respecting 
any of its moral conclusions ; and Cobden confidently expected 
that his free-trade theories would speedily spread over the 
whole civilised world. 

If our economists could agree in the definition of their 
science, or decide whether it is a science or an art, or could 
tell us whether, the inductive or the deductive method of 
investigation should be employed, or give us a vague idea of 
its scope, the dawn of better days might yet be hoped for 
respecting economic orthodoxy. Professor Cairnes burdens 
us with the following definition : " The science which, ac- 
cepting as ultimate facts the principles of human nature, and 
the physical laws of the external world, as well as the condi- 
tions, political and social, of the several communities of men, 
investigates the laws of the production and distribution of 
wealth, which result from their combined operation ; or 
thus : The science which traces the phenomena of the pro- 
duction and distribution of wealth up to their causes in the 
principles of human nature, and the laws and events, physi- 
cal, political, and social, of the external world." The weak- 
ness of this definition is that the author failed to inform us 
whether he meant the human nature as moulded by the 
theories of economic orthodoxy, or those which would have 


been moulded had some other school, say the Physiocrats, 
swayed the public mind or under an economic rule by which 
plenty, instead of scarcity, was made the basis of wealth. It 
must not be inferred that I am the author of the wild ab- 
straction that a commodity must be scarce before it can be 
classed as any portion of wealth. This is an important fea- 
ture in our inquiry, and in order to avoid misconception, I 
quote the authority l of one of the highest institutions in our 
land, as follows : " Articles which form part of wealth must 
be limited in supply ; " and the author follows the Utilitarian 
philosophers in attributing utility to those articles which, 
directly or indirectly, produce pleasure or prevent pain. The 
University economists also consider that commercial crises 
may be traced to the sun-spots. This superstition is weak 
from the standpoint that its worshippers fail to inform us 
what effects the sun-spots produced on our earth before the 
days of economic rule. 

The true inwardness of economics may be inferred from its 
assumptions. Let me quote the " first assumption " from the 
same author, namely: "That the industrial actions of men 
are determined by the desire of obtaining as much wealth as 
possible with the least possible exertion." Exactly so ; and 
this is just the very reason why we are obliged to struggle 
so hard for the means of subsistence because it is our desire 
to get much and do little. The economist creates human 
nature, and then assumes how it will act under given con- 
ditions. He creates wealth by making its commodities scarce, 
and then assumes that it is human nature for a hungry man 
to steal. He maintains, moreover, that he has nothing to do 
with moral problems, that political economy has only to do 
with the material well-being of mankind, that it instructs our 
politicians how to make the poor as few as possible, and how 
everybody may be well paid for his work in short, how a 
nation may be able to enjoy the largest possible quantity of 
scarce commodities. If moral problems have nothing to do 
with economics, then happiness or desire, as its foundation, 

1 " The University Economics," an elementary text-book on Political 
Economy, by E. C. K. Conner, M.A. (Oxford). Published 1888. The 
italics are the author's, not mine. 


must be rejected; for even in the palmy days of Greek 
philosophy, before the era of economic rule, not to speak of 
modern Utilitarianism, happiness played a leading role in 
ethical philosophy. This "first assumption," of which we 
have spoken, is a dangerous theory from another point of 
view. It assumes two propositions : (i) that men like wealth, 
and (2) they dislike labour. Why do men like wealth? 
Because they are economic beings. Why do they dislike 
labour 1 Because they do not receive the products of their 
labour. When men are engaged in robbing their fellows, and 
hoarding up scarce commodities for themselves and their "heirs 
and assigns for ever," they do not then dislike labour. Such 
men do not strike for eight hours a day. Does the scientist 
or the philanthropist men who are engaged in elevating their 
fellows and pleading the cause of humanity dislike labour? 
Labours of love and justice are foreign to the economic mind. 
There is no need of a taskmaster to urge economic men on 
during the pleasures of their midnight employments, and yet 
we are told in tones of the greatest coolness and most owlish 
gravity that those who wear their lives away to support them 
in all manner of licentiousness dislike labour. 

Logicians have played a prominent part in the moulding 
of economic theories, and I most respectfully invite them to 
point out the fallacy in the following proposition : 

Commodities must be scarce before they can be classed as wealth : 
therefore the scarcer they become the more abundant grows the wealth. 

If there is any limit to these extremes, then I want to know 
what ratio between abundance and scarcity is conducive to 
the maximum quantity of wealth. When a commodity be- 
comes so abundant that nobody desires it, it ceases to be 
wealth, from which it must surely follow that when every- 
body desires it, and is ready to sacrifice his life and all his 
possessions for it, the wealth, so far as that commodity is 
concerned, must reach its maximum. If clothes grew on our 
backs, and roasted chickens flew into our mouths in short, 
were all the objects of our desire to become as abundant as 
air there would be no wealth, and consequently everybody 
must starve, because over-production brings such direful 
calamities. If this is not a practical illustration, let us 


take another. During the past twenty years, ^6,000,000,000 
have been added to the capital of the United States, while the 
means of subsistence, taking wheat as the representative, 
have decreased from 25-30 bushels per acre to 12-15 bushels 
for the same period. Half a century ago 35-40 bushels were 
readily obtained ; and yet the land has increased in value, 
the virgin soil having been obtained either as free homesteads 
or for the low price of 3-5 shillings per acre, while it now 
brings ^10-15 per acre. This increase in economic value 
cannot be due to the improvements, for the wooded and un- 
improved portions of the same land bring as much as, and 
sometimes more than, the cultivated and improved areas. 
Carrying these figures to their logical conclusions, the time 
must come when there will not be sufficient fertility in the 
soil to support a grasshopper, while the wealth of the great 
Union, in bonds and mortgages, will have been so enormously 
increased that there can be no possibility of over-population, 
even though all the inhabitants be .kept exclusively for 
breeding purposes. If this illustration is not satis factor}^ let 
us take one in our own country. According to the Report 
of the Eoyal Commission on the Depression of Trade, the 
capitalised loss by owners of agricultural land and their 
tenants in 1885 amounted to ^740,000,000. The land itself 
has unquestionably increased in fertility, if not also in pro- 
ductiveness, owing to the immense quantities of cattle-food 
purchased abroad and fed on the land, and also owing to the 
great quantities of commercial fertilisers broadcasted over our 
pastures, and cultivated fields. Reversing the American con- 
dition, let us now drive these figures to their logical conclu- 
sions. The time must come when the capitalised loss will be 
an inconceivable amount, while the land will be so rich in the 
means of subsistence that, like the blackberries growing in 
our hedges, the crops will become so abundant that they will 
bring no money ; agricultural wealth will then be totally 
annihilated, and consequently our posterity is doomed to 
starvation, because they will have no money to live on. 
These illustrations are ample to show that economic wealth is 
based upon scarcity, not upon abundance, and it is a negation 
as well as an abstraction. 


The economist can, of course, explain this situation by the 
theories of monopoly, and this is just the battlefield into 
which I have been attempting to pursue him. Here is the 
ground on which the battle must be fought. It is an easy 
lousiness for our politicians to create economic wealth. By 
selling the Atlantic Ocean, or our streams, to some enterpris- 
ing corporation, our economic wealth could be enormously in- 
creased, for the scheme would give employment to an enormous 
number of our unemployed labourers, and many of our respect- 
able and highly educated people would be required to collect 
rents and other revenues, to act as watchmen, &c., and then 
just imagine the number of buildings that would be required 
to line our shores. If our nation would not then be wealthy 
enough, an attempt might be made to get our air monopolised, 
because it would require an enormous quantity of labour, 
machinery, &c., to pump the air out of people's houses and 
fields and preserve it in reservoirs made for that purpose. It 
would also be an excellent plan to pass stringent laws to com- 
pel us to breathe nothing but pure Italian air imported in 
bladders, which would give respectable employment to our 
lawyers and judges, not to mention the encouragement given 
to trade. A heavy fine should also be imposed on all who 
attempted to change the fashions, because the old commodities, 
being no longer desired, would cease to be wealth. Besides, 
a bounty should be given to all inventors of new fashions, 
because new things always bring much money, thus increas- 
ing the national wealth. History proves that war is a great 
wealth-creating agency, for it destroys so much property, thus 
making it scarce, and it restores confidence in trade. Slaughter- 
ing our brothers on the battlefield appears to be the most 
effective method of restoring public confidence and strengthen- 
ing our temporal powers. Would the maximum of wealth be 
attained when every commodity was destroyed, or when war 
raged until every human being was wiped from the face of 
the earth 1 Would confidence in trade and in our fellow- 
beings be completely restored, once and for ever, when the 
fury of war converted mankind into messes for vultures and 
buzzards ? If this extremity will not do, then why not try 
the other, namely, the creation of maximum wealth by ever- 



lasting peace, or say what ratio between peace and war is 
most conducive to the production of maximum wealth ] How 
would it do to conciliate the dualism by inaugurating a peace 
footing in times of war 1 a war footing in times of peace ? 
To these questions, Political Economy ! I pause for a reply. 

The fact that scarcity is the basis of economic wealth is 
further proved by the action of our monopolists. The very 
idea of monopoly is the power of making the monopolised 
commodity scarce, for the greater the abundance the farther 
it is removed from the category of wealth, and the degree of 
scarcity is measured by popular indignation and resentment. 
Nobody wants a monopoly of a commodity which exists in 
quantities above the range of human desire, present or pro- 
spective. It makes little or no difference whether the com- 
modity be a necessary or a luxury, for when a desire becomes 
fashionable, it must be appeased at all hazards. Indeed, the 
scarcer the commodity, the more fashionable it becomes. It 
becomes fashionable by virtue of its scarcity. 

The whole secret, as we shall see, may be summed up in a 
few words, namely, that natural law refuses to twist itself into 
conformity with economic orthodoxy that there is a trifle 
too much objectivity in the minds of our abstract theorists. 
Economicism has failed to create the laws of nature. Our 
labouring classes have discovered by hard experience, not by 
theory, that even Providence Himself refuses to reconcile 
economic wealth with hungry stomachs, even through the 
intercession of philosophers and priests. So long as these 
functionaries can convince the masses that their theories are 
sound, and that any violation of them will be attended with 
painful consequences, peace and starvation will flourish side 
by side ; but war is the inevitable effect of driving so violent 
a dualism to its dire extremity. 



THE population question is the root of the social problem, 
and it cannot therefore be so summarily treated as other 
economic theories. Although it properly belongs to the last 
chapter, yet a special chapter is required even for the faintest 
amount of justice to the subject. The quantity of economic 
wealth cannot be determined until it is ascertained whether 
or not the given area is over-populated, and the extent of the 
population is also the basis of the scientific wealth. I shall 
sum up briefly the weaknesses of economic theories, thus 
gaining space for the positive method of demonstration, in- 
stead of placing the main reliance on negative proofs. 

In the population controversy, the disputants may be divided 
into two classes: (i) the Malthusians, who think the world, 
or some given area, is over-populated ; and (2) the anti- 
Malthusians, who deny the correctness of this statement. It 
was the former policy of our rulers to encourage population, 
their rents thereby becoming increased, which was in sym- 
pathy with national prosperity. Nowadays, however, this 
order is reversed, the tenants not being able or willing to pay 
the high rents thus created, and, their political power also 
increasing, the cry of over-population resounds from the 
classes who still enjoy their inning. The labouring classes, on 
the other hand, maintain that there would be no over-popula- 
tion if our national wealth were more evenly distributed 
that monopoly is .the source of the prevailing misery in all 
civilised countries. In this chapter I shall point out the 
number of inhabitants which the United Kingdom can support 

in food, leaving the question of monopoly for later discussion. 

6 7 


AXIOM II. The population which can be sustained is based 
upon the average area of land required to support each individual. 

Before entering into the calculations required to solve this 
problem, let us consider a few of the weak points in the 
Malthusian theories. 

If civilised countries are over-populated, what portion of 
the population is to be removed? If it is to be the lower 
classes, which is the lower class, those who produce the com- 
modities which support others in licentiousness, luxury, and 
ease, or those who live without compunction on the life-blood 
of the producers ? Which of these classes has the greatest 
right to live or remain in their own country 1 If the poor but 
educated and refined are to be removed, should the first 
victims be selected from the politicians, the economists, the 
philosophers, or the priests? Should it be the unemployed 
poor, or the unemployed rich ? If the hours are to be legally 
restricted, should it be the hours of labour or the hours of 
idleness ? Should the hours of labour be restricted so long as 
people are famishing for want of more wealth, or should idlers 
be prevented from working for fear of over-production? If 
those who cannot make a living are to be removed, then who 
is to get the first chance who is to get the first monopoly 
the strong or the weak? The weakness of the situation is, 
that there would be a great variety of opinion on these 
questions, and also with reference to the methods of removal. 
For example, one of the most effective measures for the 
removal of the surplus population in all civilised countries 
is through dissipation and debauchery. Under this system, 
whose liberties are to be imperilled by laws for the enforce- 
ment of morality ? If war is to be proclaimed as the universal 
panacea, should those who wage the wars do the fighting, 
bleeding, and dying, or those whose voice is for universal 
peace ? Are the poor to fall on the field of battle and the rich 
to escape unscathed ? If the remedy is to be in the delaying 
of marriage until the doomed persons obtain the visible means 
of subsistence, will the Malthusians establish and maintain 
a fund for procuring divorces and supporting the families of 


those misfortunate speculators who to-day are millionaires 
and to-morrow tramps ? If, in order to enhance the dignity 
of labour, mental instead of physical labour be introduced into 
our prisons, should the most atrocious criminals be sentenced 
to study political economy, philosophy, or theology 1 If 
natural law is to be the judge in these matters, is the man of 
the highest social standing the first to flee the flame-devouring 
deck? If that most impartial of all judges, Blackdeath, were 
again to exhale his pestilential breath over our sovereign city, 
would the poor be taken and the rich left 1 

The area of land drawn on for a person's subsistence may 
be divided into four classes, namely : i. That required to 
supply him with food. 2. The area drawn on for beverages 
(wine, beer, brandy, tea, coffee, cocoa). 3. For external 
shelter and warmth (clothing, houses, fuel, light). 4. Medi- 
cines (under this heading tobacco, opium, &c., must be classed, 
in addition to ordinary drugs). In this chapter, I am obliged 
to confine the discussion to the area of land required for 
food, there being other subjects to be discussed before we 
can determine the area required for clothing, beverages, &c. 
With reference to mineral ores, which are the raw material 
mostly used for tools, implements, machinery, &c., employed 
in the manufacture of our food, clothing, and other articles of 
consumption, the principle is the same as that applied to the 
fertility of the soil, what concerns us being that in both 
instances (i) exhaustion takes place, and (2) labour is required 
to manufacture the raw material into the finished product. 
The soil may be regarded as an exhaustible mine, the elements 
of fertility being the raw material of our food, clothing, 
beverages, tobacco, &c. 

Some agricultural plants contain a larger percentage of 
nutriment than others, and some yield heavier crops, so that 
the class of plant, as well as the quantities consumed, must be 
determined before we can calculate the area of land drawn on 
for the support of the consumer. Again, a large percentage 
of our people consume animal food, in which case the quantity 
of land devoted to the support of the domestic animal must 
be ascertained, also the quantity of meat consumed. Let us 
assume, meanwhile, that the consumer will require varying 


quantities of land for his support depending upon whether his 
ration is drawn, mainly or wholly, from the vegetable kingdom, 
or from the flesh of domestic animals, mainly or wholly. lu 
adherence to the scientific method of inquiry, we must now 
ascertain whether man is a carnivorous or an herbivorous 
animal, or whether or not he is omnivorous. It will not do 
to conclude that he is omnivorous because he consumes mixed 
rations, for I would then also be obliged to call him an alcohol 
animal because he imbibes alcoholic beverages, or a tobacco 
animal because he consumes that weed. Besides, there are 
millions of men who do not consume flesh, and millions more 
who consume no vegetable food ; so that if the question is to 
be decided by the habits of our race, we are carnivorous, 
herbivorous, and omnivorous all mixed up, or more or less 
combined. Should we find that man, although originally 
herbivorous, has, through ages addicted to flesh-eating, 
evolved into a carnivore, or at least into an omnivore, then 
it will be my duty to point out the corresponding changes of 
structure and function, and also to show the advantages to be 
reaped by such a process of evolution. 

This question, however, is tripartite rather than dualistic, 
for there are three kingdoms of nature, animal, vegetable, 
and mineral, and as there are some people who believe that 
man can live partially upon the mineral kingdom, the pro- 
blem is not confined to vegetarianism versus carnivorism. It 
is well known that man, or any other animal, cannot live 
without organised minerals (ash, salts), which are found in 
all plants and in all animals, but this is not the question. It 
is contended that when mineral salts are deficient in our 
rations usually caused by artificial methods of preparation, 
such as cooking and milling the deficiency may be restored 
by drawing the lacking salts directly from the mineral king- 
dom before being organised into plant tissue. Accordingly, 
some people take drugs, mineral waters, and especially com- 
mon salt, for the purpose of supplying any saline compounds 
that may be wanting in their daily rations. Granted that 
some people's food may be flavoured by this treatment, namely, 
those who have blunted their tastes for natural flavours 
through the use of spices, condiments, &c., or those who 


consume unnatural food, or such food as has lost its flavour 
through partial decomposition or mustiness, yet these prac- 
tices have nothing to do with the discussion of the nutritive, 
or non-nutritive, properties of unorganised minerals. If these 
salts possess medicinal properties, and are taken as medicines 
by those who require drugs in all their rations, the question 
then assumes quite another aspect. Now, if common salt must 
be supplied to make up for the deficiency of saline matters in 
our rations, the inference is either (i), that salt is the only 
ash constituent removed (or rather removed below the point 
of sufficiency) ; or (2), that it can be substituted for those 
other salts which have also been removed. The salts in 
plants which are absolutely necessary for their existence are 
potash, lime, magnesia, iron, phosphoric acid, and sulphuric 
acid. All plants also contain chloride of sodium (common 
salt), but they can thrive without it, although animals cannot. 
The question which now arises is this : If vegetable or animal 
food were deprived of all its saline constituents, could the 
loss be supplied from the unorganised mineral kingdom 1 
The affirmative of this question has never been maintained, 
for it would lead to the conclusion that animals could live on 
chemical fertilisers, or on soil. As nobody has ever been 
foolish enough to attempt, or even suggest, such an experi- 
ment, we must conclude that unorganised minerals possess 
no nutritive value so far as animals are concerned, and that 
the superstition originated in a lack of scientific knowledge. 
As the saline constituents of plants are required for the 
building up of animal tissues, no one salt being capable of 
substitution for another, the scientific conclusion is, that if, 
say, common salt is deficient in our rations, the only remedy 
is the utilisation of this mineral as an agricultural fertiliser, 
so as to become first organised into plant life. This question, 
however, is not of vital importance just here ; but as it will 
be of great concern in succeeding pages, I place special stress 
upon it in this place. 

Having eliminated the mineral kingdom from this section 
of our inquiry, it remains now to consider whether our rations 
should be drawn from animal or vegetable nature. 

Although few people contend that our rations should be 


drawn entirely from the animal kingdom, yet pure vegetari- 
anism is rapidly spreading, and its doctrines have a scientific 
basis. A weakness amongst the defenders of rations com- 
posed wholly or partly of flesh is, that they have not been 
able to show whether the flesh should be from the carcasses 
of animals which are herbivorous, omnivorous, or carnivorous, 
or whether the process of our evolution is from herbivora to 
carnivora through the medium of rations composed, wholly 
or partly, of the flesh of omnivorous animals. This point 
also gives rise to another question, namely, Is such an evolu- 
tion a law of nature ? If not, it being through our own free- 
will, what advantages can we enjoy by such an evolutionary 
process ? These weaknesses suggest another line of inquiry. 
Accordingly, I shall start out from the vegetarian basis, and 
shall ascertain the area of land required to support an indi- 
vidual on a vegetarian diet, then also on a flesh diet, so that 
the defenders of the mixed rations will have an opportunity 
of accepting their own medium between these two extremes. 
Before accepting this basis, however, we must examine 
whether man is an herbivorous animal. 

That man is structurally related to other mammals is now 
recognised by all biologists of repute. Darwin says : J " It is 
notorious that man is constructed in the same general type or 
model as other mammals. All the bones in his skeleton can 
be compared with corresponding bones in a monkey, bat, or 
seal. So it is with his muscles, nerves, blood-vessels, and 
internal viscera The brain, the most important of all the 
organs, follows the same law, as shown by Huxley and other 
anatomists. BischofF, who is a hostile witness, admits that 
every chief fissure and fold in the brain of man has its analogy 
in that of the orang; but he adds that at no period of 
development do the brains perfectly agree, nor could perfect 
agreement be expected, for otherwise their mental powers 
would have been the same. . . . Man is liable to receive 
from the lower animals, and to communicate to them, certain 
disorders, as hydrophobia, variola, the glanders, syphilis, 
cholera, herpes, &c. ; and this fact proves the close simi- 
larity of their tissues and blood, both in minute structure 
1 Descent of Man, vol. L p. 7. 


and composition, far more plainly than does their comparison 
under the best microscope, or by the aid of the best chemical 
analysis. Monkeys are liable to many of the same non- 
contagious diseases as we are : thus Rengger, who carefully 
observed for a long time the Cebus Azarce in its native land, 
found it liable to catarrh, with the usual symptoms, and 
which, when often recurrent, led to consumption. These 
monkeys also suffered from apoplexy, inflammation of the 
bowels, and cataract in the eye. The younger ones, when 
shedding their milk-teeth, often died from fever. Medicines 
produced the same effect on them as on us. Many kinds of 
monkeys have a strong taste for tea, coffee, and spirituous 
liquors : they will also, as I have myself seen, smoke tobacco 
with pleasure. Brehm asserts that the natives of North- 
eastern Africa catch the wild baboons by exposing vessels of 
strong beer, by which they are made drunk." 

Darwin regards these facts as proving the similarity of the 
nerves of taste in the monkey and man, and " how similarly 
their whole nervous system is affected." He then continues 
the similarity by reference to parasites, the course of disease, 
reparation of wounds, reproduction of the species, the acts of 
courtship by the male, nurturing the young, &C. 1 

Cuvier, one of the greatest of comparative anatomists, says : 
" The structure of the human body points in every essential 
particular to a vegetarian dietary. Man appears to be con- 
structed very largely for eating fruits, roots, and other juicy 
parts of plants. His hands impart to him the facility to pluck 
them, but his short and moderately strong jaws, as well as 
his incisor and molar teeth, are unsuitable for grazing or 
eating flesh, if he did not prepare his food by cooking." 

Professor Gassendi says : " According to the original and 

1 Since Darwin's time, all searching investigations have proved man's 
genealogical relation to the lower animals, and amongst the German 
scientists, who are slow to accept theories without substantial proof, are 
ardent supporters of the doctrine of evolution. For the latest proof, I 
refer the reader to Der Bau des Menschen ais Zeugniss seiner Vergangenheit, 
by Dr. R. Wiederschein (published by the Akademische Verlagsbuch- 
handlung, Freiburg (1887). This distinguished author has collected a 
mass of evidence with reference to man's process of evolution. French 
scientists have come to the same conclusions. 


unvitiated arrangement of our nature, our teeth are not suited 
for masticating flesh, but only food from plants." 

Professor Huxley says : " Whatever part of the animal 
structure, whether series of muscles or viscera, we select as 
a basis of comparison, the result is the same. The lower 
monkeys and the gorilla differ more widely than do the 
gorilla and man." 

Ha'ckel says : "One may compare any parts of the body 
whatever, and it will be found that man is nearer the highest 
apes than the latter are to the lowest apes. But the highest 
apes are purely vegetarian ; therefore also man. The zoologist 
is compelled, whether it is agreeable to him or not, to rank 
man within the order of the true ape (Simse)." 

If, after all this evidence and much more could be educed 
any doubt remains, Professor Huxley, in his classification 
of mammals by their placental structure, has effectually 
quelled all opposition, the placenta being regarded as the 
finest mark of distinction between carnivorous and herbivorous 
animals. The teeth, in man and the ape, are identical in struc- 
ture, number, and position. All these resemblances, however, 
are not identical with reference to strength ; for our teeth have 
become much weaker through the use of cooked foods for thou- 
sands of years, and our old grandfather, the gorilla, only five feet 
in height, can encounter five or six of us at once owing to his 
superior strength and agility. In early times the apes were 
classified as men. They were ape-men : we are men-apes. 
There are tribes of hairy men at the present day men with 
long hair attached to their whole face, as well as covering their 
entire bodies. The human embryo cannot be distinguished from 
that of the anthropoid ape until just before birth, and even 
then the distinction is very slight. Some of the lower orders 
of monkeys have a slight inclination to flesh-eating, but only 
when their natural food becomes scarce ; and this tendency is 
quite in harmony with the observation, quoted by Professor 
Huxley, that " a starving sheep is as much a carnivore as a 
lion." The guiding principle which concerns us here is, that 
animals which consume their natural food, namely, that which 
is most suited for their structures, have the best chances to 
survive in the struggles for existence, other conditions re- 


maining the same. If we can now ascertain what the natural 
food of the ape is, we have solved the problem, so far as man's 
natural diet is concerned ; but we must also bear in mind that 
man has not evolved in the slightest degree in the direction 
of carnivorism, for he has not adopted nature's methods for 
such a process of evolution, and the only conclusion is, that 
flesh-eating is purely a habit which, like all our other de- 
praved habits, can be gradually broken off. The question is 
not whether we, with our weakened vital organs, can return 
to our natural diet, but whether we suffer less injury from 
the adoption of our natural foods than from persistence in our 
artificial methods of living. If we cannot retrace our steps, 
civilized man is doomed to extinction ; otherwise, no matter 
how slowly we ameliorate our dietetic habits, there is hope 
for the perpetuity of civilisation, providing other problems 
connected with our being and development can also be placed 
on a scientific basis. Many instances may be cited iu which 
tribes have changed their dietetic habits, often very suddenly, 
without a marked depreciation in their development. The 
prince of meat-eaters, the Eskimo, when his food becomes 
scarce, has been known to browse on trees, arid to live on 
and store up for future consumption leaves, bark, roots, &c., 
which they eat with great avidity. The California Indians, 
when deprived of their hunting-grounds through the advances 
of civilisation, have been known to feed on the juicy heads of 
wild clover, and have relished nuts and berries. Jenkinson 
relates that in Russia, three centuries ago, the inhabitants of 
Moscow supported life in summer by eating roots and grasses, 
and in winter by bread made from straw ; and the bark of 
trees was relished " as good meat with them at all times." 

The natural food of the monkey-tribe is grain, nuts, bread- 
fruit, apples, and bananas. The fruit-list, however, may be 
widely extended. 

We are here, unfortunately, confronted with two schools 
of vegetarians. The one takes chemistry as the basis of 
dietetics, while the other accepts genealogy and biology as 
the basis, making chemistry a subservient science. Another 
mark of distinction is, that the chemical school inclines to 
take man as he is, while the biological school strives to make 


man as he ought to be. The weakness of the chemical 
school is that, uuder the treatment of its disciples, the 
patients are growing worse and worse, no odds what school 
of medical quackery they belong to. The same forces which 
have made us bad continue to make us worse ; yet this is 
the orthodox school at the present day, and cannot be sharply 
separated from the defenders of the mixed diet. Its theories 
cannot be defended with greater success than those of the 
orthodox school of political economy ; and the same disaster 
awaits the disciples of chemistry. Seeing that civilised man 
eats cooked foods, they rush to the conclusion that man is a 
cooking animal, and they prescribe his rations in sympathy 
with this theory. They entertain, moreover, the theory that 
man, by virtue of the skill he has acquired in the art of 
cooking, milling, spicing, drugging, &c., can, with impunity, 
prepare almost all products of the vegetable kingdom as 
articles of diet ; and that, although meat-eating is objection- 
able, the products of the cow and the hen are suitable articles 
in our bill of fare. On the other hand, the disciples of the 
biological school contend that man can no more evolve into a 
cooking animal than he can into a carnivore ; that his natural 
foods possess the most delicious and delicate flavours when 
eaten raw, which is another proof of our Simian origin ; that 
the nutrients in our natural foods have the proper relation ; 
and that cooking is the process of .destroying the unpalatable 
flavours of our unnatural foods, and has not been instituted 
for improving the flavours of our natural foods. Finding that 
chemistry proves the doctrines of the biological school to 
be true, while biology cannot be made to harmonise with 
chemistry, I am obliged to accept the former as being the 
scientific school, and its disciples are therefore the only true 
vegetarians. The disciples of the chemical school I am obliged 
to classify as economic vegetarians, mainly for the reason that 
they are dealing with economic men, and their establishments 
are instituted for the purpose of drawing crowds and making 
money. There are about forty of such so-called " vegetarian 
restaurants" in London; and their standpoint for the rejec- 
tion of meat is based mainly upon " moral " grounds. How- 
ever, they have lost all title to the name of moral vegetarians, 


for the products of the cow and the hen are found in their 
bills of fare. It is immoral, they contend, to slaughter inno- 
cent animals ; but the superannuated cow or hen suffers the 
same fate as the beef steer. Indeed, it is more immoral, one 
would think, to butcher the poor cow who has devoted her 
life to the gratification of our wants than to slaughter the 
bullock who has led a life of voluptuous indulgence. It 
makes no difference to the cow whether she is slaughtered for 
human consumption or as food for dogs or worms. If our 
" moral vegetarians " established a hospital for the support of 
cows and hens which have survived their usefulness, they 
could then consistently parade their moral assumptions. To 
their credit, however, be it said that they, like the scientific 
vegetarians, reject alcoholic beverages, although, differing 
from the scientific vegetarians, they still retain the alkaloids 
(tea, coffee, cocoa). 

Fortunately, however, so far as this inquiry is concerned, 
there is a method of uniting these two schools ; for we shall 
see that each requires substantially the same area of land for 
its support, providing dairy and poultry products be rejected. 
Indeed, these products must be rejected from a vegetarian 
inquiry. My examination now is to inquire into the area of 
land required to support (i) the vegetarian, (2) the meat 
eater, and (3) the mixed dieter. In order to make these 
calculations two data are necessary: (i) the productiveness 
of the land, and (2) the average daily ration to be consumed. 
In order to avoid the details required to satisfy the orthodox 
school of vegetarianism, I shall accept their ration, although it 
is higher than is warrantable in the experience of the scientific 
vegetarian, thus evading captious criticism. In addition to 
what has already been said against economic vegetarianism, 
I shall merely add here that the theory of Liebig, to the 
effect that muscular power was expended at the expense of 
muscular tissue, has long since been exploded by an array of 
practical experiments, it now being known that muscular 
exertion is produced by the expenditure of the carbonaceous 
compounds of the ration consumed. This theory is at 
the bottom of the mischief relating to animal diet; for, 
animal foods being highly nitrogenous, it was supposed that 


they best sustained physical exertion. This theory is also 
weak from the standpoint that there are vegetable foods, 
such as leguminous seeds, which contain at least as large 
a percentage of nitrogen, which enters so largely into the 
composition of muscular tissue, as does a large percentage of 
meat from well-fed animals. But, like economic theories in 
the minds of our economists, the nitrogen idea has got into 
the heads of our learned doctors, and it almost requires a 
surgical operation to extract it. 

The most numerous and exhaustive experiments in dietetics 
have been conducted in Germany, and as the German 
standards do not differ essentially from those laid down by 
our own authorities, there is no liability for the admission 
of error. The German standard for a middle-aged adult of 
average weight (about 150 Ibs.) and taking moderate exercise 
is a daily ration containing 4.3 oz. of protein, 2.1 oz. of fat, 
and 1 8 oz. of carbo-hydrates 1 . This standard gives an 

1 In feeding experiments with cattle, which I shall have to discuss 
presently, the word albuminoids is used instead of protein or protids, 
but in order to assimilate the practices, I shall use the word protein all 
through. In human dietetics, the word amyloids is sometimes used in- 
stead of carbo-hydrates. In deference to universal practice, however, I 
shall continue to use the expression albuminoid ratio, the expression 
protein ratio not being used. Protein comprises a variety of nitrogenous 
compounds, and as their main function is to produce muscular tissue, they 
are sometimes called flesh-formers, while the fats and carbo-hydrates, being 
essentially the source of fat and heat, are sometimes called fat or heat 
producers, and they are under ordinary circumstances almost exclusively 
the source of muscular power. The carbo-hydrates embrace sugar and 
starch, with the small percentage of cellulose dextrine, &c., found in 
plants, and all these nutrients have one characteristic in common, namely, 
that they are composed of carbon and the elements of water. Fat and 
carbo-hydrates may be grouped together under the name of carbonaceous or 
non-nitrogenous compounds, the main nutritive element being carbon, but 
fat does not, like the carbo-hydrates, contain its oxygen and hydrogen in 
the same proportion as it is found in water (H<,O). Protein contains 
nitrogen, as well as carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, and the nitrogenous 
compounds have different names in different foods such as ylutcn in flour, 
albumen in the white of an egg, the fibrin in the blood, the myosin, snytoniii 
of flesh (muscle), casein in milk, c. The protein may be converted into 
its equivalent of nitrogen by dhiding by 6.25, or by multiplying the nitro- 
gen by 6.25 the quantity of protein may be determined in other words, 
16 per cent, of the protein is nitrogen. It is not of much consequence to 
pay attention to the relation between the fat and carbo-hydrates in any 
given ration, for the one may, to a very large extent at least, be sub- 
stituted for the other. Indeed, some authorities reduce all rations to their 
equivalents of nitrogen and carbon. This transformation is easily made 
when it is known, iu addition to the above figures, that fat contains about 



albuminoid ratio of i : 5.4. This is the chemical standard, 
but the chemist has no means of ascertaining whether the 
ration should be drawn from the animal or the vegetable 
kingdom, much less from any species of plant or animal. 
This is a problem for the biologist; but I shall show that 
this orthodox ration may be obtained from plants as well as 
animals. In order to settle this question, let us consider 
the following table, being the average of a large number of 
analyses : 

Chemical Composition of Foods. 

Name of 













I 6 







I 6.1 

Fruit (fresh) 





I 22 

Nuts . 






I 6-10 

Legumes . 



i. 6-1.8 



I 2.2-2.6 

Beef . 





I 0.2-5.5 

Based upon the above analyses, a complete ration can be 
formed from any one of the foods named in the table, fruits and 
legumes excepted, fruits having too wide an albuminoid ratio, 
and legumes too narrow. With reference to beef, however, 
it must be very fat in order to make a complete ration 
by itself, and as to wheat and oatmeal, the average ratio 
(i : 6) is sufficiently near the standard for all practical pur- 
poses. Some varieties are narrower than the standard, 
namely, about i : 5, and although some varieties of nuts give 
a ratio of i : 10, yet there are others, notably almonds, which 
analyse 1:5 to i : 5.5. Although in general it may be said 
that meat is the most nitrogenous food, yet the table shows 
that a very small percentage of legumes peas, beans, or 
lentils in a ration of the more carbonaceous foods would 

76.5 per cent, of carbon, starch 44.4 per cent., and sugar 40 per cent. 
Protein contains 52.7-54.5 per cent, of carbon, and the percentage of 
nitrogen may range between 15.5-16.5 per cent. Albuminoid ratio is 
the relation between the quantity of protein and carbo-hydrates, the fat 
being first multiplied by 2.4 and then added to the carbo-hydrates, which 
gives the carbo-hydrate equivalent of fat. 


give the proper ratio. Even with vegetables, potatoes, and 
rice, containing a ratio of i : 8 to i : 10, the ration can be 
sufficiently narrowed down by the use of legumes, animal 
foods therefore being quite unnecessary. Another item, 
which must not be overlooked, is the richness of oatmeal, 
fruits, nuts, and legumes in their quantity of salts, wheat and 
beef standing very low in this important constituent of our 
foods. Nuts are nutritively the most valuable of all the 
foods named in the table, one pound shelled being equal to 
three or four pounds of boneless meat. Fruits, although 
deficient in dry solids, are very valuable on account of their 
succulence, their organic acids, their organised water, and 
their saline constituents. 

My remarks, however, are based upon the theories of the 
chemical school which yet sways our dietetics, including eco- 
nomic vegetarianism, and I have shown that, even from the 
chemical standpoint, animal foods play no part in the standard 
ration. A weakness of this school is, that its adherents fail 
to take into account the injurious effects of cooking our foods, 
which we shall presently consider. Another weakness in eco- 
nomic dietetics is, that the consumers narrow the ratio of 
their rations by eating large quantities of animal foods, and 
then widen it by the consumption of large quantities of sugar, 
fat, butter, and other carbonaceous compounds, which have 
no value whatever in a scientific ration. Although protein 
is regarded as being so very valuable, yet " rich foods " are 
those which are largely composed of fatty substances, and it 
is unquestionable that the average ration of the economic 
man has a ratio much wider than the standard. Taking the 
science of biology as the basis of dietetics, the albuminoid 
ratio given by the chemists is much too narrow, especially for 
consumers who take plenty exercise and pay due attention 
to hygiene matters generally. The scientific vegetarian re- 
quires neither legumes nor meat in his rations, and as many 
tribes thrive on fruits alone, which practice has also been 
successfully tested by scientific vegetarians, the chemical 
standard falls to the ground. The fact that so many people 
live almost exclusively on potatoes and rice, which have an 
albuminoid ratio of i : 10, although these foods are not suited 


for human consumption, is another convincing proof of the 
fallacy of accepting chemistry as the basis of dietetics. 
Scientific vegetarians have obtained excellent results by 
rations having a ratio of i : 8 or thereabouts ; and an objec- 
tion to a ration exclusively composed of fruits is, that the 
quantity to be consumed is too bulky for a large majority 
of them. Another objection is, that fruits are very digestible, 
and do not therefore afford sufficient exercise to the digestive 
organs. It must not be inferred from these observations that 
the scientist takes the carbonaceous compounds as the basis 
of the ration, for on this point he agrees with the orthodox 
doctors, namely, in accepting the protein as the basis. Life 
can be sustained on protein alone, including the necessary 
quantity of saline constituents, for it contains over 50 per 
cent, of carbon, so that the carbonaceous compounds may 
be regarded essentially as economisers of the protein. All 
rations must contain a fairly constant supply of protein, but 
the non-nitrogenous compounds may vary considerably, de- 
pending, (i) upon the amount of physical exertion expended, 
(2) whether these compounds are composed essentially of 
fat, sugar, or starch, and (3) the temperature of the medium 
in contact with the skin, i.e., the quantity of clothing worn, 
or the temperature of the air. The cooler the skin, the greater 
is the draught upon the carbonaceous compounds contained 
in our rations. If these compounds are composed of sugar 
or alcohol, they are consumed much more rapidly than when 
composed of fats or starch, and as fruits contain large quanti- 
ties of water and sugar, they form the beverage of the scien- 
tific vegetarian. On the other hand, since meat contains no 
sugar or starch, alcohol seems to be the favourite fruit of the 
economic man, especially if he does not get a sufficiency of 
artificially prepared sugar ; and as to the starch, a great deal 
of it is lost through the process of cooking, the food then being 
so sloppy that it cannot be efficiently masticated. 

Adopting the orthodox standard already mentioned, viz., a 
daily ration containing 4.3 oz. of protein, 2.1 oz. of fat, and 
1 8 oz. of carbo-hydrates and for this purpose it is only 
necessary to consider the protein, for any ration containing 
an ample percentage of this nutrient will not be lacking 



in fat or carbo-hydrates the following ration may be ob- 
tained : 

2 oz. nuts (shelled weight) containing 19 \ per cent, protein 0.39 oz. 
32 (2lbs.)fruit 0.5 0.16 

30 (i.Syi Ibs.) grain 12.5 3.75 

64 oz. =4 Ibs. Total protein in ration . . 4.3 oz. 1 

Before proceeding to inquire into the area of land required 
to produce this ration, let us consider the question from a 
purely practical standpoint. The total weight of food in the 
above ration is 4 Ibs. By comparing this with the quantity 
of food given to the soldiers in different countries, we get the 
following results : The daily ration for the British soldier, 
which includes 1 2 oz. of meat, is 4 Ibs. 4 oz. ; the French 
soldier (with 10 oz. 9 drs. of meat), 3 Ibs. 3 oz. i2 drs. ; the 
German soldier (peace ration), 2 Ibs. 12 oz. 4 drs. ; the 
American soldier (with i| Ib. of meat), 2 Ibs. 10 oz. lof drs. ; 
the Russian soldier (with 3 oz. of meat), 2 Ibs. 10 oz. 3^ drs. 
The average ration for all these countries is 3 Ibs. 2 oz., the 
proof being that my ration, which very nearly equals that of 
the British soldier, cannot be objected to on practical grounds. 

1 The nuts usually consumed are almonds, which can be purchased ready 
shelled in London for yd. to 140!. per Ib. Two Ibs. of fruits may be con- 
sidered a large bulk for some people, but in practice a portion is usually 
eaten dried, especially figs, dates, sultanas, and currants that is, the 
80 to 85 per cent, of water is reduced to 1 8 to 25 per cent., so that I Ib. 
dried has about the same nutritive value as 2 to 3 Ibs. fresh. These fruits 
can be purchased in the London markets for 4d. to 6d. per Ib. It is more 
scientific, however, to eat fresh fruits, and when apples, &c., become 
scarce, fresh fruits can be purchased in tins for 4d. to 6d. per Ib. The 
cost of the scientific ration is 6d. to 8d. per day, but may range between 
4d. and is. according to the season and other circumstances. Some- 
times, for the sake of convenience, the grain, nuts, and dried fruits are 
ground and formed into loaves or cakes, but not cooked, the mass being 
held together by the moisture in the fruit ; but, apart from the labour, there 
are two objections to this process : I. No moisture in any form can be 
added without creating an unnatural thirst while eating, and dietetic per- 
fection cannot be attained until nothing is drunk except fruits. 2. Any 
form of tampering with our natural foods (grinding probably excepted) 
destroys their delicious and delicate flavours, which can only be preserved 
by eating each food separately. Grinding should be dispensed with as 
much as possible, although people with weak or imperfect teeth or jaws 
can thrive better on finely ground raw meal than when cooked, for the 
pressure of the gums causes insalivation, which is the most essential 
process. Scientific rations are now used as a remedy for a large number 
of ailments. 


From the practical experience of scientific vegetarians, how- 
ever, it is found that, in addition to the quantity of nuts and 
fruits mentioned, they cannot consume on an average more 
than i to i J Ib. of grain, while the ration contains i Ibs. 
There k no way of accounting for this difference except by 
the enormous loss in the process of cooking. This fact has 
also been proved by all accurately conducted experiments 
with domestic animals. This loss is due to the coagulation 
of the protein by cooking, and this explains the reason why 
the economic ration must have a narrower ratio than the 
scientific, the coagulated protein being less digestible; but 
the loss of nutritive value due to insufficient mastication and 
insalivation must also be taken into account. These soldiers' 
rations are, besides the quantities of meat named, composed 
mainly of bread and vegetables ; the tea, coffee, and salt, 
having no nutritive value, must be classed as luxuries. 

No objection can be raised against my adoption of the 
scientific ration in preference to an economic one ; for, as we 
shall see, essentially the same area of laud is required in both 
cases, although I have given the critic an advantage in assum- 
ing the quantity of food consumed in both rations to be the 
same, despite the fact that vegetables form the basis of the 
economic ration, and fruit that of the scientific. The quantity 
of nuts is somewhat arbitrarily chosen, having the basis of 
economy rather than science, for where nuts are abundant, 
more than 2 oz. may be added to the daily ration. No strict 
scientific rule can be given in this particular. 

There is another difficulty with which I have to contend, 
namely, that our statistics are prepared for economists, not 
for scientists. Money values have nothing whatever to do 
with scientific inquiries ; and although our agricultural abstract 
contains the average yields per acre for grain, I have had to 
depend upon personal inquiries for the yields of fruits and 
nuts. My calculations have been based upon estimates re- 
ceived from fruit-growers in the vicinity of London, and I 
have received my estimates for nuts from farmers in Kent 
county who grow " cob " nuts for the London market. Un- 
fortunately, however, I have no analysis of the " cob," but as 
the variations in a number of varieties are limited between 


1 6 and 24 per cent, of protein, I cannot be far astray in 
assuming the " cob" to contain 19 J per cent. Any objection 
raised against this analysis will be more than counterbalanced 
by the fact that nuts grown in forests and on large trees are 
more nutritive and productive than those grown under cul- 

It now remains to connect this ration with its equivalent 
in land acreage. Of the two systems of apple-culture, dwarf 
and standard, the average yield per acre in the mixed system 
is 7! tons, the standard being somewhat more and the dwarf 
somewhat less. Taking apples as the basis of our fruit- 
culture, this estimate gives us an annual yield of 16,800 Ibs. 
per acre ; but this is not the total yield of fruit, for it is a 
general practice to grow strawberries, tomatoes, mushrooms, 
&c., between the rows of trees, and the larger varieties of 
small fruits are also sometimes grown in the orchard. I have 
estimates of tomatoes yielding an average of 7 tons per 
acre, and of strawberries yielding four times the quantity of 
apples. Assuming one-fourth of the space in the orchard to 
be devoted to strawberries, the total yield of fruits will be 
represented by double the yield of apples, or 33,600 Ibs. 
The yield of potatoes for the United Kingdom is given in 
the agricultural abstract, the average for the past five 
years (1884-1888) being 4.66 tons, which, compared with 
the yield of tomatoes above given ("j tons per acre), 
amounts to almost exactly the same thing, for 4.66 tons 
containing 1.8 per cent, of protein = 0.084 ton, and 7 tons 
tomatoes containing 1.25 per cent, protein = 0.087 ton. 
It is important to bear these figures in mind, for they are con- 
nected with the figures given in the ration, to prove that the 
area of land is substantially the same, no odds whether scien- 
tific or economic vegetarianism be adopted. The yield of 
" cob " nuts, namely, i ton per acre and I have ascertained 
that almost exactly two-thirds of the weight is shell is now 
represented by 750 Ibs. of edible portion. According to our 
agricultural abstract, the average yield of wheat for the past 
five years (1884-1888) is 29.6 bushels per acre; oats, 37.22 ; 
beans, 24.93 ; peas, 23.87. These grains may now be grouped 
into two classes, the wheat, peas, and beans, yielding an 


average of 26 bushels per acre, being essentially the grain basis 
of the economic vegetarian. Wheat is a very artificial pro- 
duct, and is therefore almost destitute of flavour ; when eaten 
raw it is apt to gum in the mouth, the most nutritive varieties 
are apt to be flinty, as well as gummy, and when ground it is 
nasty stuff to handle. For the scientific vegetarian, the basis 
of the grain diet is oatmeal, even barley and rye being pre- 
ferable to some varieties of wheat, and it has the most delicious 
flavour, as well as being the most nutricious of all the cereals. 
Oats contain about 55 per cent, of well-dried oatmeal, which 
equals a yield of 20 \ bushels of oatmeal per acre; but, calcu- 
lated with the same percentage of moisture as wheat, the 
yield would be approximately 25 bushels per acre, weight 
about 50 Ibs. to the bushel. This classification gives a slight 
advantage to the economic vegetarian, but the difference is so 
slight compared with the concessions I have made that no 
criticism need be anticipated. Making due allowance for seed, 
it will be fair to classify these crops as grain yielding 23 bushels 
per acre, the average for the four grains being 25.8 bushels. 
Connecting these estimates in tabular form, we obtain the 
following results : 

I acre fruit yields 33,600 Ibs. containing 0.5 per cent, protein . 

I grain 1,380 ,, 12.5 

I nuts 750 19.5 ,, . 

Total protein per 3 acres . . . 

I acre 

1 68 Ibs. 

486 Ibs. 

Comparing these figures with one another, and also with 
tomatoes and potatoes, let us see who has the advantage, so 
far as area of land is concerned, the economic or the scientific 
vegetarian. Tomatoes yield 1 94 Ibs. of protein per acre ; but 
as this vegetable is common to both schools, the scientific 
vegetarian consuming large quantities of this and all other 
vegetables which may be eaten raw, such as melons and 
cucumbers, all criticism here must be abandoned. Potatoes 
yield 188 Ibs. of protein per acre, but after deducting, say, 
half a ton for seed from the total yield, the crop is reduced to 
4.16 tons instead of 4.66, which reduces the protein to 168 
Ibs. per acre. It need hardly be said that the potato is 


unceremoniously dismissed from the table of the scientific 
vegetarian. Nuts appear to stand the lowest on the list, but 
as the quantity eaten is small, as it is difficult to get accurate 
estimates even over so small an area, and as I am convinced 
that the above estimate is below rather than above the mark, 
the figures must be criticised with caution. Unfortunately, I 
have been unable to get reliable returns with reference to the 
yields of other vegetables and fruits. The unanimous con- 
clusion must be that both vegetarian schools draw on sub- 
stantially the same area of land for their support. 

Having ascertained the yield of protein per acre to be 162 
Ibs. 2592 oz. and as each individual requires 4.3 oz. daily, 
then 2592 -f 4.3 = 602.8, so that an acre will support one adult 
for 602.8 days, or 1.65 persons for a year; therefore 0.6 acre 
will be required to grow sufficient food for the yearly support 
of one middle-aged healthy person of average weight and 
taking appropriate exercise. Taking the United Kingdom 
as our model, the population (about 300 per square mile, 
which is greater, with one or two exceptions, than any other 
country in the world), being about 37,100,000, we can now 
easily calculate how far our cultivated area will go towards 
the support of our own people. But this population includes 
children as well as adults, also aged persons, who do not con- 
sume so much as the standard ration. According to our last 
census returns, about 35 per cent, of our population is under 
fifteen years of age. In order to evade the lengthy calculations 
required to work out rations for people of different ages, I 
shall assume which assumption is another point yielded in 
favour of the critic that the average youth between the ages 
of birth and fifteen years is equal in consuming capacity to half 
an adult. Should any doubt arise, it will be fully subjugated 
by the percentage of persons over sixty years of age, who con- 
sume less than middle-aged people. From these data our pre- 
sent population, reduced to adults, equals roundly 30,000,000, 
and as each requires 0.6 acre for his support, our total popu- 
lation will require 18,000,000 acres. These figures are now 
to decide whether our isles are over-populated, so far as the 
production and consumption of food are cosnidered. 

Of the total land area of the United Kingdom, namely, 


77,799,793 acres, 1 47,876,814 acres are under cultivation, ex- 
clusive of " heath and mountain pasture land, and of wood 
and plantations," by which it will be seen at a glance that our 
present population could be supported on a little over one- 
third of our cultivated area, almost exactly three-eighths of 
such area, or 37 J per cent. If we now take the difference 
between our total and cultivated areas, which is very nearly 
30,000,000 acres, of which, it is said, 12,000,000 could be 
profitably cultivated, and a larger percentage of the remainder 
could certainly be devoted to fruit and nut-bearing trees, it 
will be no extravagance to assert that our present population 
could be supported from our waste areas. 

Having looked upon this picture, let us now look upon that. 
After cultivating three times the area of land required for our 
subsistence, we then import annually ten million bushels of 
fruit, over 140 million cwt. of grain (including their equivalent 
in flour or meal), nearly two million head of domestic animals, 
about nine million cwt. of different kinds of meat (including 
fish), five to six million cwt. of butter, margarine, cheese, and 
eggs, about 6| million cwt. of sugar, besides various other 
articles too numerous to be mentioned. We import more 
grain alone (including its mill products) than is sufficient to 
support our whole population, and yet we are so over-populated 
that we must banish annually from our shores 250,000 of our 
brothers and sisters. Economicism, moreover, has been insti- 
tuted for the purpose of making nations populous, and conse- 
quently also wealthy. Here we have reduced to actual figures 
the value of the theory that wealth must be based on scarcity 
that abstraction and negation are the most substantial 
foundation of economic science. 

That we have here struck a violent dualism, namely, science 
versus economicism, must have already been observed by the 
critical reader. Science converts millions of acres of our 
fertile areas into a worthless waste, there being insufficient 
population to consume its products, and thus bankrupts rent 
and trade. The scientist is driven from every standpoint to 
seek a form of wealth which is based upon abundance, not 
upon scarcity, and as land is now abundant, another problem 

1 Agricultural Abstract, 1888. 


to be solved is how to make the products of the land plentiful. 
The labourer may here be driven to despair lest I deprive him 
of work which he so eagerly seeks, and he should be fore- 
warned to know that this is precisely what I intend to do. 
Labour is sought for the purpose of obtaining the means of 
subsistence, and if the labourer can obtain the objects of his 
desire without labour, he will be the last person to complain. 
The theory that people have a right to labour is one of the 
wildest of all abstractions. Putting it in the mildest form, 
the man who claims the right to labour should be able to 
show the logical effects of his exertions. By virtue of the 
nature of my inquiry, I can permit the existence of no form 
of labour which tends to the destruction of the labourer or 
any of his fellows. The secret of all the poverty, all the 
crime, which exists in the civilised world, rests on the theories 
that wealth is based on scarcity and that people can claim 
the right to labour. 

However, before we can nicely determine whether land 
in the United Kingdom is plentiful or scarce, we must also 
ascertain the area required to support our population in 
clothing, beverages, &c. This inquiry belongs to another 
chapter. The theory, tacitly or openly expressed, that our 
clothing, like our beverages, is intended to keep us warm in 
winter, cool in summer, and to have a neutral effect in spring 
and autumn, is of no value to the scientist until the economist 
informs him whether the heat should be supplied by the 
combustion of fuel (food) within the body, or whether the 
same object can be attained by external protection from cold. 
If the economist further urges that man has developed into a 
shame-animal, thus requiring clothing to hide his shame, the 
scientist still wants to know whether shame is an abstract 
idea, or whether it belongs to the " innate moral sense " also 
whether man should not hide his head for shame rather than 
his body. Until these questions be decided, there is no sense 
in wrangling over the interior dualism, namely, woollen 
versus cotton clothing. It is not my place to deny that all our 
paraphernalia are adjusted for the good of trade, but it must 
not be forgotten that my inquiry is adjusted for the good of 

It is in order here to say a word about cooking. I have 


pointed out the fact that we require more land to support us 
on cooked foods than upon the same foods eaten in their raw- 
state ; but from this standpoint alone, I do not attach much 
importance to the question. One of the most essential 
branches of my inquiry is the emancipation of labour, and 
especially the emancipation of women. There is a superstition 
afloat that a great deal of our misery is caused by bad cooking, 
and that the only remedy is the establishment of institutions 
for acquiring the art or science of cookery. Before the 
scientist consents to be taxed for furnishing respectable 
employment in this particular, he requires an answer to 
the following questions : r. Should we produce foods whose 
flavours are adjusted to our natural tastes, or accept the pro- 
ductions of nature as they are, adjusting them to our tastes 
by destroying their natural flavours and making them palat- 
able by cooking, salting, spicing, &c. ? 2, What is the effect 
. of cooking upon each of the nutrients contained in our food 1 
3. If cooking is intended to ease our masticating and digestive 
apparatuses, why do our brains and muscles require exercise 
and our digestive organs none? 4. If our food is to be 
eaten hot, can (a) heat in the body be produced naturally in 
this manner, and (6) what is the sense in thus producing 
heat under summer temperatures ? 5. If the object be to 
furnish employment, then (a) can other employment not be 
obtained, and (b) what is the tendency of that form of em- 
ployment by which people are obliged to stand over a hot 
cooking-stove, thus producing heat in the body by external 
application in addition to that produced within the body by 
eating hot foods ? These questions will be more thoroughly 
answered in subsequent chapters ; but meanwhile I shall 
quote the words of an eminent authority l who speaks from 
long experience and observation : 

"Of all the artificial forms of treatment to which foods are sub- 
jected, that of cooking is the most universal, and therefore demands 
our special attention. If we rightly consider the influence' of this 
process upon all the natural properties of a plant, we must concede 
that it is in almost every case injurious, and that it should be 

1 Bread and Fruit : A Scientific Diet. By Gustav Schlickeysen ; trans- 
lated from the German by Dr. Holbrook. 


dispensed with, so far as our present habits of life will admit of, and 
with a view to its final and complete disuse. The natural fluids of 
the plant are, in great part, lost in cooking, and with them the 
natural aroma so agreeable to the senses and so stimulating to the 
appetite. The water, supplied artificially, does not possess the same 
properties as that which has been lost, and all the less so since it 
has been boiled. The cellular tissue of the plant loses all its vitality, 
and ripe uncooked fruits and grains, with their unbroken cellular 
tissue, their stimulating properties, their great content of water, 
sugar, and acids, and their electric vitality, are calculated to impart to 
the human body a rosy freshness, to the skin a beautiful transparency, 
and to the whole muscular system the highest vigour and elasticity. 
Uncooked fruits, especially, excite the mind to its highest activity. 
After eating them, we experience an inclination to vigorous exercise 
and also an increased capacity for study and all mental work ; while 
cooked food causes a feeling of satiety and sluggishness. Not only 
do plants lose their vital, but, to some extent, also their nutritive, 
properties when cooked. The vegetable acids and oils, the latter 
being of especial value in the development of the bony structure of 
the body, are, by cooking, dissipated, while the albuminoids are 
coagulated, and thereby less easily digested, so that the nutritive 
value of the food is reduced to a minimum. Another injury that 
results from cooked food is that caused by the artificial heat. All 
heat excites, through expansion, an increased activity, but this 
activity is not normal in the case of food eaten hot. Again, the 
sensory nerves of the lips and the nerves of taste are weakened by 
hot food to such an extent that they no longer serve as an infallible 
test of its quality, and hence articles that seem in the mouth to be 
palatable and good may be very injurious to the system both on account 
of their natural properties and their artificial heat. In a similar 
manner, the sense of smell is blunted ; and not less injuriously does 
hot food act upon the teeth, the enamel of which is destroyed, ren- 
dering them unfit for their work of mastication, in consequence of 
which the food passes unprepared into the stomach. The eyes are 
also injured by the action of hot food upon the nerves connected 
with them. That condition of weak and watery eyes, so apparent 
in the habitual drunkard, exists in a certain degree with all whose 
systems are enervated by hot and stimulating foods. But the greatest 
harm from hot food is caused in the stomach itself, the coats of 
which are irritated, reddened, so that tliey lose their vigorous 
activity and capacity for the complete performance of their natural 
functions. The blood, excited by the heat, flows in excess to the 
stomach, and thence feverishly through the body. One result of 
this is the flushed condition of the head after eating. Hot food also 
causes excess in eating, so that it is rather by a sense of fulness and 
oppression than by a natural satisfaction of the appetite that one is 
prompted to cease eating. An evidence of the weakness of the 
stomach by hot food is seen when one eats an apple immediately 
after the usual hot meal. Fruit thus taken lies like a stone upon 
the stomach, the enfeebled nerves being injuriously affected by its 
presence ; whereas, in their normal condition, they are stimulated 


to a most agreeable activity by it. From the abuse of the organs 
of digestion result a host of diseases. A life-long weakness of the 
gastric nerves, with cramp and inflammation of the stomach, are the 
common fruits. To this cause also is attributable the almost uni- 
versal prevalence of colds, which are the direct result of unnatural 
temperature conditions of the body. The blood, artificially heated, 
causes an excessive perspiration, since it produces an increased, but 
injurious, activity of the skin ; and upon the least change of tem- 
perature, the perspiration is condensed upon the body, and causes 
colds and stiffness, and this all the more certainly when the blood 
is impure and the tissues overloaded. From the same prolific cause 
results all the uneasiness and languor experienced after eating hot 
food. But the evil effect cannot be overcome by the usual. after- 
dinner nap. This cannot replace the elements lost from the food, 
or give the enlivening impulse experienced after partaking of ripe 
fruits in their natural state. It is, indeed, argued that our northern 
climate requires that food should be eaten hot as one means of main- 
taining the bodily temperature ; but if this be true of man, it must 
also apply with equal force to all animals, and since man alone seems 
to require hot food, the argument loses its force. In the polar 
regions, the. conditions of animal life show plainly that the natural 
process of generating heat is not by putting heated substances into the 
stomach, but by the normal action of the vital forces upon the food 
taken in its natural state. Greater thirst is experienced after eating 
cooked than uncooked food, and this results both from the change 
which the food has undergone and from the perspiration caused by 
the increased heat of the body. The artificial solution of the food 
impairs its nutritive properties, and weakens the natural functions 
of the body by depriving them of their natural employment ; and 
this has been so long continued that we are now almost incapable of 
digesting uncooked grains, so that their enlivening and invigorating 
action is almost unknown. The modern kitchen lias thus perverted 
the natural appetite and enfeebled the natural powers. It has also 
fostered injurious customs, and introduced articles of diet that would 
otherwise have been excluded. Only through its aid can the flesh 
of animals be rendered palatable. Its abolition gradually, if not at 
once, would contribute much to restore man to his normal dietetic 
conditions, and would exclude the most injurious parts of his present 

The above extract is a pretty specimen of man's super- 
natural powers of objectivity his boasted mastery over 
natural laws. The orthodox doctor holds a position identical 
with that of the economist, and is, moreover, a great aid to 
economicism ; for he induces the belief that a specific can be 
found for the violation of natural laws. When he finds out 
the error of his ways, and ceases to enjoy vested rights in the 
manufacture of patients, his profession will develop into a 
science, instead of degenerating into the art of quackery. 


Unless he can show the advantages to be gained by man's 
attempted evolution into a cooking animal, his profession 
must go the way of all other abstract theories. 

The objection that our foods must be cooked because 
domestic plants and animals themselves, being the result of 
economic husbandry, are artificial productions, is the direct 
reverse of a scientific truth ; for cooking, like artificial agricul- 
ture, has the effect of widening the albuminoid ratio, the 
former by coagulating the albuminoids, and the latter by 
producing an excess of carbonaceous compounds in agricul- 
tural plants and domestic animals. Plants and animals 
plucked from the field of nature are not only more nitrogenous 
in their composition, but also more healthy and more highly 
flavoured than the same species under domestication. The 
excessive carbon, indeed also some of the nitrogen, is not 
healthy tissue ; and it is, therefore, a great mistake to suppose, 
as many have done who have rather suddenly adopted the 
scientific diet, that a loss of weight is necessarily accompanied 
by a loss of health or strength. Indeed, the reverse is very 
frequently the case. 

Practically we are a toothless generation, and so long as 
we continue to cast upon our stomachs those burdens which 
belong to our jaws, there can be no solution of the social 
problem. Making slaves of our stomachs and lords of our 
jaws is the same principle which has caused the extinction of 
all civilisations, and our bodies cannot escape the same fate. 
The number of millers and cooks is a measure of the time 
during which civilised nations can exist; for a function 
cannot continue after the structure is gone. The moral con- 
clusion must also follow, namely, the supplanting of natural 
by stupefactive pleasures the generating of miserable weak- 
lings, puny runts, who can look without compassion upon the 
sufferings of their fellow-creatures. 

This chapter would not be complete without inquiring into 
the area of land required to sustain our population on a flesh 
or mixed diet. I shall therefore proceed, by the same method, 
to draw the ration already given from the animal kingdom, 
instead of the vegetable. In the science of cattle-feeding, the 
method is somewhat different in detail, although identical in 


principle. Albuminoid ratios are seldom spoken of in human 
dietetics, but, in my opinion, it is the most intelligible ex- 
pression of relations, and is adopted by all experimenters in 
cattle-feeding. The most important difference in the two 
methods is the recognition only of the digestible portions of the 
nutrients in stock-feeding. The number of experiments have 
been so large that digestible coefficients have been determined, 
whereas in human dietetics, the number of experiments being 
less, and man being a more economic or artificial animal than 
the bullock or even the hog, determinations of digestible per- 
centages have proved very unsatisfactory. Man, however, 
has his digestive coefficients largely under his control, based 
upon the quantity of mastication which the food receives, but 
this advantage has faint application when cooked foods are 
eaten. It is to be further noted that, in cattle-feeding, it is 
always understood that the rations are consumed in their raw 
state. If the foods were reckoned as being cooked, the animals 
would draw on a larger area of land for their support. It is 
not necessary to consider the different species of domestic 
animals separately, for the results will be found to be essen- 
tially the same whether we take the steer, the sheep, or the 
hog as the standard. As the most numerous and exhaustive 
experiments have been conducted with bovines, I shall select 
the beef steer as the basis of my calculations, and shall then 
compare the results with those of a milk diet. Chemistry 
has done little or nothing more than to prove that the natural 
foods of domestic animals possess the proper albuminoid ratio 
and other qualities, although a great deal of useful knowledge 
has been accumulated in the chemical laboratory with refer- 
ence to the compounding of rations which are composed, 
mainly or entirely, of by-products or artificial foods. It 
should also be noted that the object in feeding stock is to 
find a ration which will produce the greatest weight in the 
shortest time, which requires a ratio somewhat narrower than 
under natural conditions, the animals receiving little or no 
exercise and being closed up in warm stalls. How this differs 
from human dietetics I am not prepared to say; but, judging 
from observation, I should think that the only aim of the 
economic man in this world is to eat and grow fat. 


According to the highest authority on cattle-feeding, 1 whose 
results have been practically substantiated by our own great 
authority, Sir J. B. Lawes, a steer weighing 1000 Ibs. when 
stalled requires, as an average of the three periods of fatten- 
ing, 26 Ibs. of dry solids in his daily ration, which must con- 
tain 2.7 Ibs. of protein, 0.6 Ib. of fat, and 14.8 Ibs. of carbo- 
hydrates, making an albuminoid ratio of i : 5.5, these nutrients 
referring to the digestible percentages of the ration. For the 
purpose of compounding this ration, we require 13 Ibs. of hay 
(clover mixed with timothy or other grasses), 5 Ibs. of peas, 
6 Ibs. of oats, and 30 Ibs. of roots. I have selected these 
foods because the yields per acre are given in our agricultural 
abstract, namely, hay 1.41 ton per acre from permanent pas- 
tures, turnips 10.14 tons, mangels 16.66 tons, peas 24.93 
bushels, oats 37.22 bushels. As already stated, the peas and 
oats are averages for the past five years (1884-1888). The 
averages for roots are for the same period, but only the yields 
of hay for 1887 and 1888 are given in the abstract, of which 
the given number of tons is the average. I take the average 
of turnips and mangels, and call the yield 13.4 tons of roots 
per acre. One acre of each of the above crops will therefore 
give the following results : 

3> ! 58-4 Ibs. containing 6 per cent, digestible protein, 189.5 Ibs. 

Peas, i,495- 8 2O . 299.2 

Oata, 1,265.5 9 113.9 

Roots, 30,016.0 1.2 360.2 

Total protein from 4 acres, 962.8 Ibs. 
I acre, 240.7 

An acre thus produces 240.7 Ibs. of digestible protein, and 
as the steer receives 2.7 Ibs. daily, 89 animals can be sup- 
ported from an acre for one day, or 0.24 animal for one year. 
In other words, it requires 4.16 acres to support a fattening 
steer for a year. . 

This figure may be assailed by some practical farmers who 
have good pastures carrying two bullocks or cows per acre, 
or who feed large quantities of ensilage, but the data are taken 
from the averages of their own returns. It is assumed that 

1 Landwirthschaftlichc Fiitterungslchre, by Emil Wolff. 


the area of land drawn on is the same under winter and sum- 
mer conditions, which is sufficiently correct for the purposes 
of this inquiry. Should any practical objection, however, be 
raised, it may be offset by the fact, as proved by the experi- 
ence of farmers, that there is a disadvantage in raising steers 
from calfhood up to the stalling period, it being more profit- 
able to purchase store animals. This is quite natural, for the 
land drawn on by the steer's dam for nine months before and 
about six months after calving is chargeable to the steer. 

As already shown, 0.6 acre will support an adult human 
being, and as the steer requires 4.16 acres, or very nearly 
seven times more land, it is plain that if the steer's increase 
in weight will support seven men, it makes no difference, so 
far as the area of land is concerned, whether we live on vege- 
table or animal rations. What now is the consumable pro- 
duce of this steer? This is obtained by ascertaining the 
average daily gain during the feeding period of one year. 
At the last annual cattle show of the Smithfield Club (1888), 
the average daily gain of the eighteen prize-winners from 
birth was 1.8 Ib. per day, the average weight being 1833 Ibs., 
and the average age 999 days (af years). But these animals 
were extravagantly pampered in competition and for choice 
markets, thus receiving larger rations than the standard, and 
are not therefore a fair criterion for our purpose. From all 
the data I can gather, a gain of 1.5 Ibs. per day is a liberal 
allowance. For the first year, or thereabouts, the gain would 
be more; and afterwards, especially after the second year, 
it falls off considerably. Our steer, entering the stall at a 
weight of 1000 Ibs., would be about seventeen months old, and 
it requires an animal of the best beefing breed to gain 1.5 Ib. 
daily after that period. After being fed for one year, he would 
be nearly two and a half years old when slaughtered, which is 
about the usual age, despite the " baby-beef boom." Based 
upon this daily gain, the total gain for the year will be 547.5 
Ibs. live weight, which represents the produce from our 4.16 
acres. The steer, now being classed as fat, will yield as car- 
cass about 65 per cent, of its live weight, including fat on the 
kidneys and intestines, so that the area yields in butcher's 
meat 356 Ibs., which makes a daily ration of 0.95 Ib. for a 


meat-eater, uncooked weight ; and as the carcass contains about 
7 per cent, of bone, the edible portion is reduced to 0.88 Ib. 
According to estimates made in the army, there is a loss of 25 
per cent, in bone, gristle, and other uneatable substances, and a 
further loss of 25 per cent, in cooking, which would reduce the 
ration to about \ Ib. ; but as these estimates are from inferior 
carcasses, they are hardly a fair criterion for our purpose. 
Two-thirds of a pound would be a nearer estimate. Now, it 
is well known to every observer that the habitual meat-eater, 
who drinks a fair average of stimulating beverages and 
swallows the usual quantity of aperient drugs, will consume 
| to |- Ib. of meat daily in addition to the same quantity of 
vegetable food as that consumed by the vegetarian, who, as 
a rule, has no desire for alcoholic drinks. The stimulating 
properties of meat, in connection with its absence of carbo- 
hydrates, are at the bottom of our drinking habits, and the 
cooking of foods intensifies the evil. It is, therefore, no ex- 
travagant estimate when it is said that the meat-eater requires 
4.16 acres more for his support than the vegetarian, even 
without reckoning the extra area which he imbibes. The 
Eskimo, when he can get no vegetable food, consumes 6 to 8 Ibs. 
of flesh daily ; but as this is mostly blubber and consumed in 
very cold regions, it is not a fair criterion for our conditions. 
But these observations are merely practical. Let us now 
bring the question down to a scientific basis. Tiie carcass 
being fat, it forms a complete ration, so that no addition of 
vegetable food is necessary, and the analysis will therefore be 
55 to 60 per cent, of water (lean meat contains about 77 per 
cent.), 10 to 12 per cent, protein, 20 to 25 per cent, fat, 6 to 7 per 
cent, bone, and about i per cent, of ash in the muscle. Based 
upon the scientific standard already given, which contains 
4.3 oz. of protein in the daily ration, 3 Ibs. of meat per day 
will be required, raw weight, or 1095 Ibs. yearly; that is, 
roundly, the produce of three steers ; and as each steer requires 
4.16 acres for his support, the man who lives on a meat diet 
will require three times this area, being at least 12 acres. In 
other words, he requires twenty times more land for his sup- 
port than the vegetarian, and our present population would 
therefore require, in round numbers, 375,000,000 acres, or 


nearly eight times our cultivated area. The mixed dieter 
has now his choice between the 0.6 and the 12 acres. If 
our cultivated area were equally divided amongst our people, 
there would be 1.6 acre for each person, the population being 
reduced to adult equivalents, so that if he adopted a vege- 
tarian diet, he would have exactly one acre over and above 
the area required to support him in food. This acre not 
being required for meat, and therefore also not for alcoholic 
beverages, the next problem to be solved is how far it will 
go towards his supply of clothing, which inquiry belongs to 
another chapter. He gets almost exactly one more acre of 
waste land, which should be sufficient to satisfy him so far as 
playgrounds, parks, &c., are concerned. 

Before passing on to the discussion of the milk diet, we 
have already sufficient evidence to expose the fallacy of all 
attempts to solve the Malthusian and anti-Malthusian theories 
by abstract processes of reasoning. The question may now 
be asked whether the scientist is a Malthusian or an anti- 
Malthusian. He is neither; and therefore, also, not both 
combined. The Malthusians maintain that our isles are over- 
populated, and that emigration or restraint is the remedy; 
which is not scientifically correct, for our present population 
could be increased at least threefold without importing any 
food. That restraint is required no scientist will deny, but 
not restraint on population, but restraint on abstract theories 
and the terrible calamities which they have produced. In- 
deed, it would not be much of a figure of speech if I said 
restraint on education. On the other hand, the scientist is 
not an anti-Malthusian because he can devise no means for 
bringing manna down from heaven, and the population must 
therefore be restricted within the limits of the soil's produc- 
tiveness at any given period. Agricultural science has proved 
that neither the soil itself nor the raw materials utilised for 
maintaining its fertility is an inexhaustible mine ; although, 
by the exercise of scientific economy, the fertility, and con- 
sequently also the population, could be increased. Another 
problem connected herewith is the increase or decrease of 
vitality in our agricultural plants, which, however, belongs to 
a later chapter. All that is necessary to be understood here 



is, that no matter how small the area of land may be which is 
required to support an individual, there is some limit to that 
area, and a corresponding limit to the population. The anti- 
Malthusians are therefore unscientific when they espouse the 
theory of Providential interference, or maintain that so long 
as people are born with twice as many hands as mouths, there 
can be no danger of over-population. This idea is based on 
the theory that the productivity of the soil may be increased 
in proportion to the quantity of labour applied. We shall see 
that, in the long-run, the exact reverse is the case. From the 
scientific standpoint, over-population takes place when the 
products of the soil fall below the standard ration for each of 
all the inhabitants of a given area, or all the world, according 
to the condition of commerce. The scientist is, therefore, 
obliged to devise methods for restricting population within 
this limit without violating any natural laws. Whether the 
scientist should be hanged for discouraging trade, or the eco- 
nomist hanged for discouraging science, may be elicited from 
subsequent pages. 

A word about the cow is now necessary for the comple- 
tion of this chapter. All economic men, even including the 
economic vegetarians of the orthodox school, are called upon 
to defend the cow, for she has not one scientific point in her 
favour, and the same arguments apply with equal force to the 
hen. In speaking of rations composed of milk, there is a 
prominent weakness which, I regret to say, makes our English 
language poverty-stricken in all attempts to find adequate 
expression, so I am obliged to use an Americanism, namely, 
Thar ain't nothin' to chaw at, somehow. The beauty and pro- 
fundity of this illustration cannot be fully realised until 
we are able to comprehend how thoroughly befitting it is 
when also applied to all abstract theories. There seems to 
be a superstition afloat that our jaws perform their natural 
functions while engaged in discussing abstract theories, and 
that they would be overstrained if they also performed the 
artificial function of masticating solid food. Milk is recom- 
mended on account of its ease of digestion, but this argument 
is weak from the scientific standpoint, because our vital 
organs require exercise as well as our other structures. If 


more digestible foods are required, why do our economic 
authorities not recommend fruit ? It is a strange inconsistency 
to scour the earth for digestible foods, and then put them 
through the process of milling or cooking in order to make 
them more indigestible, thereby encouraging the trade in pills, 
"digestive candies," and other nostrums. Like our brains 
and our muscles, our vital organs require both light and 
heavy exercise. The same nice principles of discrimina- 
tion are exercised with reference to the flavouring of our 
foods. For example, we flavour our porridge with salt, 
and then flavour the salt with sugar. We eat hot foods 
and drink hot beverages in summer to sustain the bodily 
warmth, and then swallow ice-water and ice-cream to keep 
us cool. We build fires in our houses to keep us warm, 
and then open the windows to keep us fresh and cool. In 
short, so great are our powers of objectivity that we can 
carry any desired climate in our pockets, and can modify any 
product in the three kingdoms of nature to appease our hunger 
or tickle our nerves of taste. Let us connect these observa- 
tions with the following remarks by Sir Henry Thompson, 
namely, " that a proportion amounting at least to more than 
one-half of the disease which embitters the middle and latter 
part of the life amongst the middle and upper classes of the 
population is due to avoidable errors in diet," and he proceeds 
to attribute the cause mainly to over-eating. The economic 
man is always eating and is never satisfied always scrambling 
for wealth, wherewith he may enjoy still greater luxuries, 
and never gets enough. Meat, although not masticated by 
carnivorous animals to any appreciable extent, has the ad- 
vantage of affording some exercise for our teeth and jaws, 
which cannot be asserted with reference to a milk diet, while 
the latter is equally injurious on account of its stimulating 
properties. We masticate meat because it requires no masti- 
cation or insalivation, and bolt our vegetable foods because 
they require to undergo these processes. Moreover, it is 
urged that mothers cannot raise their infants without the 
aid of the cow. This is the most suicidal argument in all 
economic theories; it is a complete relinquishment of the 
whole case. If our mothers had milk to spare for needy 


calves, there would be some hope for our race ; and what is 
still worse, cows are getting economic so rapidly that many 
of them have not sufficient milk to raise their own offspring, 
leaving no surplus for the offspring of human beings. My 
inquiry will be a failure if I cannot find mothers who can 
raise their infants on their natural diet, and prevent human 
beings from being calves all their days. It stands to reason 
that if mothers do not themselves consume natural foods, they 
cannot produce natural food for their offspring. 

Before accurately determining the area of land required to 
support an individual on a milk diet, the scientist demands 
from the economist an answer to the following questions : 
At what age should a cow drop her first calf] What is the 
period of her milk-giving usefulness ? What is to become of 
her carcass ? Should the milk be consumed mostly fresh or 
sour, or converted into butter, cheese, condensed milk, or 
koumiss 1 What is to be done with the skim-milk and the 
whey? Should the milk be drunk cooked or raw? Should 
she be fed mostly in the stall or on the pasture, and what 
are her rations? To what breed does she belong? It is not 
the part of the scientist to solve these questions, for he must 
condemn the whole process; but, certain data being given, 
he can extend them to their conclusions a very unpleasant 
task for the true scientist. The conclusions can only be here 
approximated, and the question must be disposed of briefly. 

In order to utilise the same feeding ration as that con- 
sumed by the steer, as already considered, let us assume her 
weight to be about 1300 Ibs., and let her give milk of average 
quality, namely, 87.6 per cent, water, 3. 4 per cent, protein (casein 
and albumen), 3.4 per cent, fat, 4.8 per cent, milk sugar, and 
0.8 per cent, mineral salts. As with the steer, she will require 
4.16 acres of land for her support, without counting the 10 
or 12 acres required to produce her before she drops her first 
calf at the age of z\ or 3 years. As a human adult requires 
4.3 oz. of protein in his daily ration, he must consume 6.4 Ibs. 
cf milk per day, or 2336 Ibs. per year. Some cows do not 
give more than this quantity of milk yearly, but as our cow is 
large, well fed, and presumed to belong to a good milking 
breed, she will give three times this quantity, say 7000 Ibs. 


that is, she will support three men. In other words, 4.16 
acres will support three adults, or 1.4 acre will support one 
adult. This apparently shows better results than the beef 
steer, but proves the fallacy of the " three-acres-and-a-cow " 
theory supported by a certain wing of our politicians. If the 
three acres supported the cow, the cow would not support two 
adults. But the matter presents quite a different phase when 
the milk is converted into butter or cheese. Two ounces of 
butter per day is not a heavy consumption (45.6 Ibs. yearly), 
and as the milk (except when the fat is separated by centri- 
fugal force) gives about the same percentage of butter as 
butter fat (butter contains about 12 per cent, of water), 
7000 Ibs. of milk will represent 238 Ibs. of butter ; so that our 
4.16 acres will be required to produce butter for 5.2 persons, 
or each person will require 0.8 acre to keep him in butter, 
or exactly one-third more land than is required to supply the 
vegetarian with all the food he consumes. From the scientific 
standpoint, butter is a perfectly useless and valueless article, 
for more wholesome and delicious forms of fat are contained 
in our natural foods, and should not be separated from them. 
As nobody can live on butter, the area of land required to 
support an individual on a butter diet cannot be determined, 
but from cheese we can form a complete ration. As milk 
produces 10 per cent, of cheese, the person who consumes 
^ Ib. of cheese per day and this is a small piece on a slice 
of bread will require about the same area of land to keep 
him in cheese alone as the vegetarian requires for his com- 
plete rations. Cheese contains from 24 to 34 per cent, of pro- 
tein, and it would therefore require about a pound per day to 
support a person on a cheese diet, which represents nearly 
z\ acres of land. These figures would be still more alarming 
if we calculated the area of land wasted in producing the cow. 
Driving these estimates to their logical conclusions, the 
reason why we require so much land for our support is be- 
cause we are too lazy to work our jaws except for the 
discussion of abstract theories. The butcher, the miller, the 
cow, and the cook are the measure of our vital degeneracy. 
The poor people and the hogs, by virtue of some providential 
arrangement, I suppose, get the most nutritive portions of 


our foods, while the luxurious, or comparatively worthless, 
nutrients go to the rich. These luxuries are scarce because 
they require a great deal of land and labour for their produc- 
tion, and they are luxuries because they are scarce. The rich 
get the butter, the more worthless portion of the milk, and 
the poor people and the hogs get the protein the most valu- 
able nutrient. So also with the wheat; the hogs get the 
protein, and the men the carbo-hydrates. Even from our 
butchers' shops the gluttons carry away the fat, because it 
requires so much land and labour to produce fat animals, and 
the poor men get the protein, because the protein-producing 
breeds of domestic animals have no pedigrees, and are allowed 
to shift for themselves. It does not now require a strong 
logical faculty to see that the farther we remove ourselves 
from the laws of our being and development the more land 
and labour we require for our support. In other words, with 
the advance of economicism we draw on correspondingly more 
land and labour for our maintenance ; and the same rule 
applies with equal force to our clothing, beverages, medicines, 
&c., and even to the area of land required to furnish us with 
light while penetrating the depths of abstract theories. 

With reference to the disease germs in milk and domestic 
animals, and the great liabilities thereto owing to the econo- 
mic character of our agricultural operations, little comment 
is necessary here, the facts being well known. Dr. Carpenter 
estimates that 80 per cent, of the meat in our metropolitan 
markets is unfit for human consumption. Despite all these 
and many other drawbacks, so great is our adherence to habit 
that we will butter our bread with margarine made from the 
vilest of fatty filths rather than relinquish a luxury which, in 
the ordinary ration, has no nutritive value whatever, and, to 
the unvitiated palate, is not even a flavouring substance. The 
area of land wasted in attempting to prevent adulterations 
against which scientific rations are proof, as well as the 
area wasted in vain attempts to prevent contagious diseases 
amongst our domestic animals is enormous, and has only 
the advantage of enlivening trade and affording respectable 
employment for a miserable pack of office-seekers. 

A word is here necessary with reference to the pretensions 


of our economic vegetarians on the ground of economy. 
They assert that they can live on " 6d. a day " by the adop- 
tion of their rations, and parade this as an argument in order 
to win the patronage of the poor. If I were asked if I would 
recommend my scientific diet for poor people on the ground 
of economy, I would emphatically exclaim No ! There is no 
inconsistency in this piece of advice. Under economic rule 
the tyranny of monopoly wages would irresistibly converge to 
the 6d. focus, and the poor would then be in a worse condition 
than they are now ; for when the lowest limit is once reached 
there is no possibility of further economy ; whereas, so long 
as the belief generally prevails that the subsistence standard 
is, say, i8d. a day, public resentment is aroused when a reduc- 
tion is proposed, and at the same time opportunities are 
afforded for economising to bridge over temporary difficulties. 
A few amongst the poor may gain a temporary advantage 
under the iSd. standard, while no such advantage could be 
reaped under the 6d. regime. It is, therefore, the policy of 
the poor to maintain the i8d. basis, although they could 
otherwise gain a permanent advantage by living on 6d. a 
day. If the hundreds of thousands of unemployed poor in 
London could be educated to live on a porridge composed of 
a mixture of dust and rain, say street-scrapings, their con- 
dition would not be one whit ameliorated. So long as these 
scrapings could be obtained free of charge, they would not 
form a portion of our national wealth, so that a monopoly 
would have to be granted empowering some corporation to 
make the scrapings scarce by exacting, say, 3d. a day from all 
consumers of street-scrapings ; then our national wealth would 
be enormously increased, and wages would sink to the 3d. 
level. The advantages in granting this monopoly would be 
that respectable employment would be furnished to police- 
officers and other officials for the purpose of protecting the 
scrapings against the assaults of hungry men, and the powers 
of the State would be invoked to guard the interests of the 
monopolists, thus strengthening the temporal and spiritual 
powers, and creating respectable employment for lawyers, 
judges, politicians, &c. It would also give employment to 
the unemployed, who, without monopoly, could have lived 


without labour, beyond the exercise required for gathering their 
food. It might also be the means of stimulating philan- 
thropy. If some means could be devised for granting the 
monopoly to a corporation of poor people who had the power 
of making the scrapings so scarce that they were eagerly 
devoured as a luxury by the rich, this would be in a different 

The central point in this chapter is the adjustment of the 
population to a given area, and so far as this principle is 
concerned, science may be dispensed with altogether; or even 
should the science be proved to be false, the truth still re- 
mains that the extent of population is based upon the area 
of land which each inhabitant draws on for his support, no 
odds whether this area be one acre or one thousand acres. 
The space must be adjusted to the individual before the 
number of individuals can be determined. This is the law 
and gospel of population, which axiom cannot be reasoned 
away by all the abstract theories that have ever been con- 

This discussion opens up two questions, namely, that our 
isles are not populated up to their full capacity either (i) 
because the individual does not desire to till the area of land 
required for his support, or (2) there is some barrier which 
shuts him out from opportunities of cultivating his parcel of 
land. These questions will be solved in the two following 



AXIOM III. In the opportunities for gaining access to the 
means of subsistence, no individual gains an advantage by being 
born before another. 

Deduction: No generation can gain a similar advantage 
by living before another generation. 

The weakness in the violation of this axiom is, that it leads 
to all manner of confusion. What individual, corporation, or 
generation is entitled to this monopoly ? Who can present 
the most rightful claim ? Before what tribunal can his claim 
be legitimated 1 That the title-deeds of our monopolists 
have been recorded in heaven need not be disputed ; in fact, 
this is the weakest pillar in the whole structure. The fabric 
of " divine rights " must fall by virtue of its own rottenness, 
and with the structure vanishes also the function. In our 
own case, monopoly is still sustained by the theory that God 
was on the side of William the Conqueror and his generation, 
in the eleventh century, and their " heirs and assigns for ever." 
The effect of this theory has been the dethronement of the 
Norman's Deity and the crowning of a new Deity who 
presides over humanity, and defends with loyal impartiality 
the rights and titles of all generations of men. An attempt, 
it is true, has been made to crown a Deity whose worshippers 
are restricted to the living generation in each age, i.e., each of 
the living has an equal share in the monopoly but the throne 
of this Deity is now a keg of fizzing dynamite. That any 
Deity can enjoy peaceful and perpetual rule save He who 
presides over the interests of humanity is based upon the 

theory that any generation can bind and rob posterity. 



Posterity may be stopped by the persistency of economic or 
other objective forces, but perpetually bound, and plundered, 
never. Our attempts to attain this end through physical 
violence, and through the moral compulsion of ancestor- 
worship, are the barriers which obstruct the solution of the 
social problem. The fact that the privileged individuals have 
received their titles by inheritance does not alter the situation, 
for there must have been an original monopoly ; and to say 
that a title is just because it has been acquired by force or 
fraud is an acknowledgment that the reputed owner is a 
mere tenant, for he can only hold his title so long as he 
retains his superior force or cunning, or so long as he can 
bind posterity. Indeed, the so-called ownership is an abstract 
idea. The theory of " divine rights " is weak on the ground 
that the Deity, one would think, would enact laws for the 
preservation of his worshippers rather than for their extinc- 
tion. The question really resolves itself into this : Can man 
by virtue of his supernatural powers of objectivity create 
a natural law through which monopoly can be perpetually 
enforced ? Without denying the legal rights of the privileged 
successors of William the Norman, I shall show that there is 
no law in nature by which these rights can be maintained. 
The dualism is not that of peasant proprietary versus land- 
lordism i.e., little landlords versits big landlords but 
between monopolism and natural law. It is the same 
dualism over and over again man against nature. The 
solution of the land monopoly problem is the solution of the 
monopoly of all commodities ; for everything, even man him- 
self, is land or a part and parcel thereof. In short, land is 
the ground of all social problems, all social phenomena ; and 
if the land monopolist does not own the human beings 
which his soil has produced, then his ownership is an abstract 
idea, and a scientific basis of ownership must be found. 

For convenience' sake, all monopolies may be divided into 
three classes : (i) land monopoly, (2) monopoly of the products 
of the land, and (3) monopoly of men's minds and consciences. 
In the ultimate analysis, however, there can be no monopoly 
except that of the land ; but if it can be disproved that our 
minds and consciences are products of nature, these being 


supernatural gifts, my classification falls to the ground. I am 
obliged to accept the above classification because my in- 
quiry is scientific. If the land must of necessity belong 
to humanity, how can any individual or generation acquire 
a right to obtain or utilise its products except for the benefit 
of humanity ? Here we are also confronted with a problem 
with reference to the rights of labour. 

In order to remove all doubt with reference to the rights 
and titles of our monopolists, it is necessary to take a survey 
of the origin and development of monopoly. Hand-in-hand 
with this inquiry is found the monopoly of the human con- 
science; and the struggle for individualism in the one case 
runs parallel with that in the other. It is only a modified 
form of false subjectivity and objectivity a shifting from 
one abstract basis to another. The form of individualism 
established by peasant proprietorship has no more to do 
with the solution of the social problem than the liberty 
granted to the individual for the control of his own con- 

To arrive at the real origin of monopoly we must trace our- 
selves back to the " dumb brutes." AVho has not heard of 
a dog monopolising a bone, or a monkey monopolising a stone 
to crack nuts with ? In this inquiry, however, I can barely 
go back to the first page of human history. Indeed, so far as 
this chapter is concerned, man's original sin has its essential 
features in feudalism. This is the form of objectivity which 
has given rise to modern civilisation. 

In very ancient times it was the custom of kings and other 
ambitious adventurers to engage in hostile expeditions against 
neighbouring States ; and the fame and booty, the latter 
being largely in the form of land, were shared amongst the 
victorious leaders. In feudalism proper, which was built on 
the ruins of the Roman Empire, the system developed into 
theories of rights and titles, and these theories are the ground 
of modern laws in all civilised countries. This system having 
naturally brought about its own destruction, the ancient 
State, at a later period, did not recognise individual rights 
or personal freedom. The serfs, who enjoyed no share in 
the State, performed the menial and servile duties ; and the 


whole life of the community material, legal, moral, religious, 
&c. was under State control. Ancient Rome, transformed 
into feudal States through the power of the Church and of 
the Teutonic race, had devoted its energies objectively to the 
arts of law, politics, and arms; and Christianity, the sub- 
jective element, had never succeeded in reducing the State 
entirely to an ecclesiastical institution hence the develop- 
ment of a dualism which, for many centuries, divided the 
human mind and caused much suffering and bloodshed. The 
Church controlled man's spiritual nature, as the State con- 
trolled his outer life ; the former by moral processes, the 
latter by outward compulsion. Rome remained the spiritual 
capital of the West after the political power of the Empire 
had departed ; the universal State was transformed into the 
universal Church. 

But the Teutonic character gave a different tone to the 
mediaeval State. Unlike the Romans, the Teutons were not 
a political people. Individualism being their essential virtue, 
they could not tolerate the dominance of federated authority ; 
they thirsted for personal freedom, and claimed to have innate 
rights which the State was bound to protect. The State 
existed for them, not they for the State ; and the individual 
even claimed the sacred right of resistance against State sove- 
reignty when his private rights were assailed or imperilled. 
A weak federal authority might therefore be justly antici- 
pated, even though the Teutonic race cherished the Roman 
civilisation, and, above all, the Roman religion. In the 
mediaeval State the supreme sovereignty, temporal and 
spiritual, was derived from God, and the temporal ruler 
being the head of an indirect theocracy, unity of creed was 
demanded, the clergy stood above the laity, thus enjoying 
many immunities and privileges, the peasantry still remained 
serfs, and custom was the chief source of law. 

Under feudal monarchy, the land, as well as the political 
power, was conferred by the king (lord paramount) to his 
vassals (feudatories, lords, dukes, counts) in consideration of 
oaths of fealty and homage; and the lords were equally 
bound to guard the interests of their inferiors. The land 
allotments (feuds, fees, fiefs) were, upon non-performance of 


the stipulated military services (usually forty days in tlie year), 
and upon desertion of the lord in battle, to revert to the crown. 
Eut the system developed into a chain of tenants, those hold- 
ing land from the crown being called tenants-in-chief, who 
again gave grants to middle lords, and these again to other 
middle Lords, the lowest in the series being the villeins or 
small farmers who tilled the land with their own hands, were 
bound to the soil, and were in the most abject condition of 
servitude. These serfs dared not leave the estates without 
their lords' permission ; they were in the same condition as 
beasts or other chattels, and could be chased off the land 
without a moment's warning. Those countries which adopted 
the feudal policy attained great military strength, so great 
that the people of other countries who enjoyed free tenures 
were obliged to surrender their allodial possessions, and then 
take them back under the feudal plan. The feud was origi- 
nally held at the will of the lord, who was the sole judge as 
to the faithful performance of the vassals' duties and services, 
but afterwards it became certain for one or more years, 
and still later during the lifetime of the feudatory. It was 
not yet hereditary, although granted to the children of the 
vassal, until it became uncustomary to reject the heir, pro- 
viding he was capable of performing the required services, so 
that infants, women, and monks, being incapable of bearing 
arms, were ineligible as feud-holders. The heir, however, 
according to custom, was obliged to pay a fine (relief) to the 
lord, thus re-establishing the inheritance, and even when 
the feud became hereditary the relief continued, although the 
original cause had vanished. It was a function of the feud 
that the vassal could not dispose of, exchange, mortgage, or 
devise it without the consent of his lord, for he held it by 
virtue of his personal abilities, neither could the lord transfer 
it without the consent of the vassal. The rent paid by the 
vassal to the lord was in the form of military services ; that 
paid by the tenant to the vassal was usually in the form of 
corn and cattle, money having played an inferior rule under 
feudal monarchy. 

There arose also dualism between the feudal lords and their 
vassals. The latter, true to the Teutonic character, struggled 


for independence and supreme authority within their own 
domains, which resulted in reducing federal authority to a 
political fiction. The vassals, it was held, were not bound to 
serve the king, but only their immediate superiors or lords ; 
and if the latter waged war against the king, their vassals 
could render them assistance without being guilty of treason. 
These rights were measurably the cause of political disintegra- 
tion in the French and German monarchies. The rights of 
coinage and the administration of justice were also wrested 
from the king. 

Since the tenth century, however, the wars were fought by 
the inferiors, the nobles, State-officers, &c., having gradually 
shaken off the military burdens imposed upon them by feud- 
alism, which brought the system into great disrepute amongst 
the masses, whereby new feuds were rarely established, and 
elapsed ones did not revive, and war-duties gradually assumed 
their modern phases. Feudal jurisprudence, however, became 
a subject for the learned, and developed into that wonderful 
and intricate science (!) commonly known under the name, 
style, and title of " landlordism," which has given and still 
gives such high dignity to the academy and the bar. By the 
laws of Prussia (1850), the system became so obnoxious and 
demoralised, so shocking to the moral sense, that large tracts 
of land were expropriated without compensation to the land- 
lords, and peasant proprietary reigned in its stead. 

The feudal system existed in England before the Norman 
Conquest ; but William the Conqueror recommended its con- 
tinuance as the best method of strengthening the military 
position of the kingdom ; and, accordingly, at the Council of 
of Sarum (1085), the leading landowners submitted to this 
system of military tenure. In the other aspect of feudalism, 
however, namely, the weakening of the federal authority, he 
instituted a marked contrast to the Continental system, the 
royal power being much stronger in England than in France. 
Most of the English estates were granted to William's fol- 
lowers as rewards for their military services. The English 
nobles have never enjoyed the rights of coinage or of private 
wars, and the mere possession of land confers no political autho- 
rity, except in the abstract sense. The English theory is that 


everybody is liable to render military service, although our 
soldiers are drawn from the voluntary list. Many choose the 
soldier's life because of the scarcity of remunerative employ- 
ment in other pursuits, caused by our economic system. If 
the feudal theory is sound, namely, that the fighters should 
own the land, our soldiers should, in the natural evolution of 
the system, be the landlords of to-day. Instead thereof, the 
people, by virtue of their being deprived of land, are forced 
into the arm)'. During the Middle Ages the lords possessed 
both the wealth and physical endurance, while nowaday, 
owing to physical degeneracy, monopoly is maintained by the 
strength of political cunning. 

Although the Wars of the Roses and the shocks of sub- 
sequent centuries may be regarded as having struck a fatal 
blow at feudalism, yet its shades haunt the economics of the 
present day, and uphold feudal law and politics with their 
ancestral associations and complications. Even dismissing 
natural and moral laws, the laws of England recognise no 
such title as absolute ownership in land. In the most abso- 
lute estate, that in fee-simple, the nominal owner is tenant 
in relation to somebody else, and so on up to the sovereign 
whose titles are not of this world. Neither is it possible for 
absolute ownership to take inception in any individual or any 
generation, for no tribunal can be constituted which is able 
to rob posterity of its birthright. Under our present law, 
when freehold tenants die heirless and intestate, the land 
escheats to the next lord, and in the absence of a middle 
lord, to the crown. When these are the results with reference 
to the highest estate which can be held in land, there is no 
use in discussing inferior titles, such as copyhold, in whicli 
feudal incidents are most marked, or other tenures which 
have arisen from inferior kinds of feudal holding. Herbert 
Spencer recognises land titles as being traceable to " violence, 
fraud, the prerogative of force, and the claims of superior 
cunning." A writer in the Encyclopaedia Britannica (under 
Land), says : " They (the lawyers) expressed then as now the 
unquestionable legal rule that there is no such thing in our 
system as an absolute private right of property in laud, but 
that the State alone is vested with that right, and concedes to 


the individual possessor only a strictly defined subordinate 
right, subject to conditions from time to time enacted by the 
community." Under Landlord and Tenant, the writer in 
the same Encyclopaedia says : " No such thing as the absolute 
private ownership of land is recognised. The absolute and 
ultimate owner of all lands is the crown, and the highest 
interest that a subject can hold therein is a tenancy. The 
largest estate known to the law, that in fee-simple, is after all 
only a holding in which the owner of the fee stands to the 
lord in the relation of a tenant." A writer in a recent issue 
of an influential magazine * remarks : " The great landholders 
considerately in their own interests abolished the feudal 
tenures and created themselves owners," and then proceeds to 
say that " the monarch, representing the State, is still by law 
the feudal superior over the whole land of the kingdom." 
Those Irish landlords who trace their titles to the Crom- 
wellian conquest, when confiscated tracts of land were awarded 
to Puritan adventurers, have no better titles than our feudal- 
istic landgrabbers. All these tenures are as much of a fiction 
and an abstract theory as tenancy at sufferance in English 
law. Amongst the various offences through which " lands, 
tenements, and hereditaments " may be forfeited, those of 
crime and waste alone would be sufficient to dispossess the 
so-called owners. Guizot says: "Feudalism is perhaps the 
only tyranny which men have never been willing to en- 
dure : they have willingly yielded to monarchic and theocratic 
despotisms; but to feudalism, never." We have, however, 
Avillingly yielded to theories which are based upon feudal 
despotism. The cause of our not being willing to yield to 
feudalism or landlordism is very easily explained; for we 
can directly see that it shuts us out from the means of subsist- 
ence, and this explains the natural law which brings about the 
destruction of the system, the monarchic and theocratic des- 
potisms having accomplished the same results in a more 
indirect manner; and their doom is none the less certain, 
although more remote. If our taxes were drawn directly 
out of our pockets, instead of indirectly, our revenue collectors 
would stand on the same footing as our feudal lords, and yet 
1 Westminster Review for May 1889, p. 468. 


our taxes are much more burdensome by virtue of the fact 
that we have to pay them indirectly. So it is with our land- 
lords ; they frame schemes for relinquishing land which they 
do not and cannot own, and yet draw revenues from other 
sources, thus increasing those burdens which are already too 
grievous to be borne. To let go a monopoly in land and then 
seize a railway or any other monopoly, material or moral, is 
no advance towards the solution of the social problem. 

Although the fact is recognised that no original titles have 
ever existed, yet it is said that innocent purchasers, having 
given substantial value, have acquired legal rights and titles 
of which they cannot be dispossessed without adequate com- 
pensation. There are three weaknesses in this theory, i. If 
our feudal holders cannot retain possession of the land, the 
fact that consideration has been given can alter no natural 
law. 2. In the form of peasant proprietorship, the theory 
has been tested over and over again, and has just as often 
proved a failure. 3. If a sale of land can be enforced, the 
plain inference is that the ownership is an abstract theory. 

Granted that the feudal holders had paid the value of the 
land a thousand times over, their possession would be no 
more secure than it is now. The natural law is that the 
means of subsistence ultimately fall into the hands of starv- 
ing masses, no odds whether the titles be of this world or 
emanate from heaven. If the monopolists choose to bring 
about this state of affairs, they have only themselves to blame. 
Of all the forms of land tenure, that of peasant proprietor- 
ship is probably the most iniquitous. It creates the insane 
illusion that the occupiers of the land are the owners, and 
the " magic of property" incites them to the most aggravating 
form of slavery a condition under which many a slave of the 
chattel class would succumb. The most abject and enthral- 
ling form of servitude is to be the slave of economic freedom. 
In France, Russia, and Prussia, even though the system is 
still in its infancy, no greater slaves have ever lived than the 
peasant proprietors, especially the peasants' wives and daugh- 
ters. In Prussia, the peasants for the most part live in their 
cow-stables perhaps it would be more correct to say that the 
cows dwell in the farmers' houses ; and in Russia, although 



the system is not much over a quarter of a century old, the 
land-plots are so minutely subdivided amongst the heirs, that 
their existence has become barely possible, and the surplus 
population, flocking to the towns and cities, has intensified 
the struggles for existence. In France the peasant proprie- 
tors are in a deplorable condition, although, owing to their 
increase of political power and the levelling clown of the 
classes, their plight is not so appalling as it was before the 
breaking out of the Revolution. All the arguments which 
have been urged in favour of peasant proprietary, by illus- 
trating the improvement of the French peasants, have a false 
basis, for any amelioration is due to the restriction of popula- 
tion rather than to the land system, coupled with increased 
economy in the administration of public affairs. The law of 
evolution under peasant proprietorship is, that the little 
plots of land, from which the barest means of subsistence is 
drawn, eventually find ownership after being mortgaged to 
their utmost value, in the person of money speculators, large 
farmers, retired merchants, &c., many of whom are the most 
exacting of all breeds of landlords ; and landlordism, in the 
most iniquitous of all its phases, again holds sway. If it 
Avere possible for peasant tenure to gain a firm footing, it 
would be followed by one of the greatest disasters which has 
ever befallen civilisation ; for then the landlords, owing to 
their great numbers, could, by united action, forcibly deprive 
the rest of the community of their natural opportunities and 
their heritage, an occurrence which would not be feasible 
under the rule of a limited number of proprietors. The 
great political question in England to-day is, Who should be 
evicted the landlord or the tenant? Science answers both. 
The mother-earth, which gave us birth and maintains our 
existence, belongs to humanity ; and the individual or even 
the generation can only hold it for himself, his " heirs and 
assigns for ever," so long as he can stop or rob posterity, and 
exercise his miraculous powers of objectivity. The axiom 
that the land belongs to humanity is not only a question of 
common sense and justice, but also a question of natural law 
which we are obliged to recognise before the first step can be 
taken towards the solution of the social problem. We are 


coerced to acknowledge the supremacy of humanity. It is 
not a war of the classes against the masses, or the masses 
against the classes, both of which forms of warfare have 
failed to restore unity, law, and order: the problem of 
objectivity and subjectivity must be solved we must know 
whether man, or some men, is a parcel of nature or an efflux 
from the skies. 

With reference to compensation, there is no law in nature 
by which an individual, corporation, or generation can escape 
the responsibilities of his or its own follies and crimes. He 
who purchases land, either the raw material or the finished 
product, in the belief that he, for himself, his " heirs and 
assigns for ever," can enjoy quiet possession, must certainly 
run the risks attached to such a belief. Who compensated 
the Scholastics when the irreconcilable device of preaching 
Jahvism in the Church and Jovism in the Academy was 
resorted to? Who rewarded our Established Church when 
Methodism purloined vast flocks from her folds ? Who com- 
pensated the coachman when the railway swept his tardy 
wheel from our highways ? Who compensated the poor house- 
wife when cruel spinning-jenny drove her from her post ? 
Who compensated Napoleon for his miscalculation on Water- 
loo's bloody field ? Certainly he could not expect compensa- 
tion from a neutral power, and if England had generously 
compensated him, what would he have done with the money ? 
Matured fresh intrigues for the disintegration of the British 
Empire, of course. Who compensates the manufacturer of 
toothpicks for losses due to the rapid spread of vegetarianism 
in England? Who compensates the bears on our Stock 
Exchanges when the bulls gore up the price of stocks ? Who 
compensates Christianity when her pillars are shattered by 
the battering-rams of Positivism, Agnosticism, Theism, and 
Humanitism? Who compensates the "boomers" of town 
property when in human desire the prices are regarded as 
being too fabulous for safe investment ? From whose pockets 
are our politico - economic philosophers, our doctors, our 
lawyers, and our priests to draw their compensations when 
their occupations are gone ? Who compensates posterity for 
the crimes perpetrated against it by the pride, folly, and 


stupidity of past generations ? Who compensates our nation, 
when the shattered pillars of our museums and temples are 
transported to distant lands as monuments of economic 
barbarism 1 ? The king who preaches that his regal power 
emanates from heaven, but acts as if it emanated from hell, 
loses his crown : the position is untenable, illogical eternal 
truth must prevail and yet he blames the fulminators of dis- 
content for his misfortune. 

If our lords of the soil deserve to be adequately compensated, 
they must be able to draw the same revenues as before, both 
for themselves, their " heirs and assigns for ever ; " they will 
require the same acreage of land for their support, and the 
same toiling millions must wear their lives away in maintaining 
ranks and ceremonies. No condition is changed ; the privi- 
leged classes would draw interest instead of rent, which is a 
mere change of words, and a change in the meaning of all the 
words in our language would not solve the social problem. 
If a compromise be once conceded as being just, this acknow- 
ledgment is an absolute relinquishment of all claims. 

Let us, again, suppose that the landlords should compensate 
the community for the loss of its rights and titles which it 
has sustained for so many centuries ; then the land, including 
its products, must be either equally divided, the landlords 
getting nothing, or some individuals must present their claims 
for larger allotments or shares than others. How is it 
possible to decide these claims, or even divide commodities 
into shares proportionate to the weight or intelligence of the 
various individuals ? What tribunal is to decide the extent 
of their wants or necessities ? If labour is to be the measure 
of our rights, then who has the right to. perform the most 
labour? If war is to be the arbiter, then the history of 
three thousand years proves this method to be a failure ; and 
the condition remains the same whether the arbitrament is by 
the bullet or the ballot. Who are the greatest criminals, the 
robbers or those who have permitted the robbery to take 
place before their eyes, when they enjoyed the power to 
prevent it 1 

In the previous chapter we found that population is a land 
question a science, not an economic theory. In the subse- 


quent pages we have also traced the science of human rights 
to our mother-earth. Land is the root of economicism and of 
civilisation. Abstract theories regarding the land question 
have pulled us down ; a scientific land basis is the only thing 
which can raise us up. The existing theories of rights, 
founded upon the laws of ancient Rome, have been based 
on the hypothesis that land tenures can by process of 
human law be made absolute that man, by virtue of his 
supernatural gifts, can overrule the laws of nature. But the 
preposterous nature of this assumption can only be fully 
realised in connection with economic theories. A title can 
easily be made absolute so long as land is abundant, for when 
nobody desires land there will be no dispute about the title 
or character of the tenure. In order that land may be cate- 
gorised as wealth, however, it must be made scarce ; and 
when it becomes so scarce that everybody wants it, and is 
ready to sacrifice all his possessions for it, then the economic 
wealth of the nation, so far as the land is concerned, attains 
its maximum value. Thus a close connection between wealth 
and population is established ; the greater the population the 
greater the aggregate desire ; and the pressure of popula- 
tion against monopoly, titles, tenures, and vested rights, not 
against the means of subsistence, as the Malthusians contend, 
is the source of all poverty, misery, and crime. History 
proves that the monopolists, having feasted on the sweets of 
idleness and licentiousness through the toil and penury of the 
masses, drive this dualism to its appalling extremity ; hence 
*he havoc with rights and titles and the consequent disrup- 
tion of civilisations. This is the objective extremity ; then 
recommences the rule of the subjective element, the senti- 
ment of humanity, the socialistic regime the bond with which 
nature endows all animals for the preservation of their species 
the subjective element then again evolves into the objective, 
and so on in ever-recurring cycles. 

But this is not yet the logical conclusion of monopoly. The 
economic value of land is not restricted to the desire for it in 
any given generation. The prospective increase of population 
gives value not only to unoccupied lands, but also to land in 
the centres of agricultural and commercial activity. Thus we 


find that in our economics we are ruled by posterity, while in 
our morals we are ruled by the shades of our ancestors, the 
living_ generation being, as it were, the battle-ground for the 
opposing factions. We are amid the smoke and clash of arms 
between the dead and the prospective living. There is a 
saying, uttered with the view of tickling our laugh-faculty, 
to the effect that we owe nothing to posterity because pos- 
terity has done nothing for us ; but this is a question of the 
greatest gravity in the solution of the social problem. We 
coerce posterity to create our wealth, and then rob it not only 
of the means of its subsistence, but also of the strength which 
is required to obtain its livelihood ; and then we invoke the 
shades of our ancestors, under the sacred name of religion, to 
sanction our crime. So violent a dualism undermines our 
whole fabric of economics and jurisprudence, and transforms 
our entire political system into a myth. My position, there- 
fore, is to find a scientific basis of land tenure, which must 
also include the science of human rights. 

With this chapter we started out with two propositions : 
(i) the barrier which hinders the individual from obtaining 
possession of the parcel of land required for his subsistence, 
and (2) his desire to cultivate his plot. This barrier, as we 
have just seen, is monopoly ; and it is now in order to discuss 
the second proposition, which will be further elaborated in 
the next chapter. The collateral issues, namely, the nature 
of the tenure, the alternative of an equivalent return should 
the individual not desire to cultivate his plot, and the extent 
of his rights to labour on other plots of land for the purpose 
of treasuring up wealth for himself and his "heirs and 
assigns for ever " will be discussed in subsequent chapters. 

We have seen that in ancient times the tillers of the soil 
were slaves, in mediaeval times serfs, and that the lords of 
the earth have always been the landowners, rulers, idlers, and 
slave-drivers. In all ages brute force was considered to be 
the essential in growing and gathering the fruits of the earth, 
and the occupation therefore only befitted the most benighted 
slaves. With the rapid increase of population it became 
impossible for the lords to augment their numbers in propor- 
tion to the general growth of the community, and serfdom 


being a revolting condition, an influential middle class emerged 
into history, who naturally applauded any theories which 
tended to procure for them a respectable livelihood, if not 
also rank and affluence. Any theory which aimed at the pro- 
duction of wealth with the view of maintaining an increased 
population flattered the lords, because the pressure of the 
people against monopolised land was found to increase rents ; 
and so long as the lords were regarded as absolute owners of 
the land, the tenants being mere chattels, population was 
encouraged, the masses being the consumers of agricultural 
products and the producers of luxuries for the lords, which 
developed into the autocracy of fashionism a magic power 
which has permeated all classes of the community, and is a 
convincing proof of our Simian origin. Without the rule of 
this Czar, who is a deadly foe of science, economicism would 
be an idle tale, and wealth would be extinguished. His 
rights are rapidly growing divine, and he requires many 
million acres of land for his support. 

These two barriers in the way of land cultivation, namely, 
(i) monopoly, and (2) the idea that agriculture is a servile 
occupation, are all that is necessary to be discussed here. 
But when all the land in a country is monopolised and occu- 
pied there is no way of measuring the strength of the desire 
to cultivate any portion of land. In all sparsely settled 
countries, however America, for example where there are 
millions of acres of free homesteads, we find that the desire 
to occupy and cultivate land is very weak, even amongst 
those who are able to undertake agricultural operations ; and 
still weaker is the desire to embark as agricultural labourer, 
though the wages be higher and the means of subsistence 
securer than in other manual occupations, despite the fact 
that the skill required may be less. The dread of the stigma 
which is attached to agricultural pursuits, and of the social 
degradation conjoined therewith, are the chief impediments. 
Stock-raising, however, which, as we shall see, has evolved 
into the dignity of a commercial enterprise, has opened up 
employment for people who are satisfied with a moderate 
degree of respectability. The respect due to trade has become 
so veaerable that the peddling of trinkets is preferable to 


agricultural serfdom. The holding back of lands owned by 
huge monopolists from cultivation, thus driving the pioneers 
beyond the borders of the community, out of the reach of 
social advantages and enjoyments, adds greatly to the iniquity. 
So firmly is the sacredness of land monopoly rooted in the 
civilised mind that the monopolists, although their wealth is 
due to the increase of population and the sums squandered 
by the State for the importation of labourers, demand com- 
pensation when public indignation is aroused, and when 
the legality of their titles, acquired by all the fraud and 
cunning incident to the lobby, is called in question. The 
titles wrested from the legislators in this manner have no 
greater validity against humanity than those acquired in the 
most crime-polluted wars which have ever disgraced the 
pages of history. Ignorance of natural law is not less excus- 
able than ignorance of human law; and the landlord who 
believes that lobbyistic is more sacred than the feudalists 
title must run the risk of such belief. If he imports immi- 
grants to cut his throat, no odds whether they belong to the 
free or the chattel order of slaves, he only repeats what our 
mercantile theorists did when they gave encouragement to 
population. The landlord who permits his hogs, by virtue 
of their numbers, to outwit him in strength, must run the 
risk of their breaking into his corn-fields, especially if he 
attempts to subdue them by starvation. In the United States 
the negroes are already threatening the whites with extinc- 
tion, due to their superior hardiness and fecundity. 

The evolution of slavery is so distinctly marked that it can 
give rise to no misconception. First we have the chattel 
slave, second the serf slave, and third the economic slave, and 
yet we call it the evolution of freedom. The chattel slave can 
never be in a worse condition than other domestic animals ; 
for it is the personal interest of the owner that they should be 
permitted to draw on sufficient land for their support, other- 
wise their efficiency could not be maintained. Not so, how- 
ever, with the serf or the economic slave, for his efficiency 
bears no relation to the profits of the slave-driver; and in 
this respect the economic or free slave is in a worse condition 
than the serf. The true measure of the intensity of slavery is 


the area of land on which the slave is permitted to draw for 
his support ; the more this area is below the standard for sub- 
sistence, the more intense is the condition of slavery. What 
is the sense in talking about human rights or political freedom 
unless these so-called privileges enable the toilers to draw on 
a sufficient area of land for their subsistence 1 We boast of 
the spread of education amongst the masses, and regard this 
as an indication of progress, prosperity, and freedom. What 
are they educated to know ? They are taught to know that 
wealth is produced by creating lords of the soil, thereby 
making land scarce ; that in this manner capital accumulates, 
which is the fund from which labourers must live, and is also 
the source of employment; that they must support spend- 
thrifts to waste the products of their labour, thus creating a 
greater demand for labour and encouraging trade ; and that 
when capital tends to decrease they roust accept lower wages 
and restrict their numbers owing to over-population. They 
are taught, moreover, the sacredness of "vested rights" in 
ideas. The learned depend for their subsistence largely upon 
accumulating the ideas of the past, and their livelihood de- 
pends upon this education just as much as the landlord's 
depends upon monopoly. No attempt is made to show any 
relation between these ideas and the welfare of humanity ; 
and the masses are taught to believe that men of learning 
also must exist for the purpose of consuming the products of 
their labour. Any attempts made to render the study of 
these ideas unfashionable are resisted by men of learning, just 
as landlords resist attempts to disturb monopoly, and in the 
abstract method of thinking, wealth is destroyed by extin- 
guishing a profession as well as by extinguishing rent. 
Hence the theory of vested rights is applicable to our intel- 
lectual as well as our material pursuits ; and touching respect- 
ability, if we cannot reach its height by supporting ourselves 
without labour, we must rush to the next degree by main- 
taining ourselves through mental exertion. The masses are 
taught to believe that if any one or more of our intellectual 
occupations were removed, there would be greater competi- 
tion in the labour markets. Here the source of the degrada- 
tion of labour and the prominence given to intellectual over 


physical employments may be traced. Our religion binds us 
to believe that the spirit is the pure, undefiled, immortal part, 
while the body is a mass of corruption, and our philosophy 
teaches us that the idea is the absolute and the sublime. The 
high degree of respectability attached to the idea is based 
upon the theory that the function remains when the structure 
is gone, and the prominence given to the idea leads to the 
conclusion that ideal theories must be relied on for the solu- 
tion of all phenomena, natural and supernatural. The man 
who bases his titles to the means of subsistence upon ideas 
must run the same risks as other clamourers for the sanctity 
of vested rights, his endeavours to bind posterity being 
equally futile, and unless he gives adequate return for the 
area of land which he draws on for his subsistence, no power 
or law on earth can save him. 

There being no law by which an individual can hold land 
by ordinary metes and bounds, another basis of tenure must 
be found. One thing is certain, namely, that every individual 
draws on a certain area for his support, no odds who claims to 
be the owner of this parcel of land ; and it makes no differ- 
ence whether the area be located in one spot with definite 
boundary-lines, or split up into minute parcels and located in 
every country under the sun. This is not a question of any 
scientific import ; for the area may be conceived as being defi- 
nitely located, and its products exchanged for those in other 
districts or countries. All lands are measured or valued by 
their products. To deny that an individual has a right to draw 
on land for his support is to deny his right to live ; and if he 
has a right to live, he is the real owner of the land from which 
lie draws his subsistence. There can be no meaning in claim- 
ing a title to a piece of land so long as another person has the 
power to appropriate the products. The economic idea only 
leads to abstract conceptions of rank and respectability. While 
it is true that the abstract title gives the holder power to 
draw on laud without rendering adequate service to humanity, 
yet the holders of no titles may draw on still larger areas 
without claiming any land titles whatever, and without ren- 
dering corresponding service. Science has only to do with 
the area of land which an individual draws on for his sub- 


sistence. All the chattel slaves who ever lived, in common 
with all other domestic animals, have enjoyed the area of 
land required for their support both for themselves and their 
"heirs and assigns for ever ;" and as this tenure has never 
been disputed, it is as absolute in human as in natural law ; 
and the economic slave, as heir to the property of the chattel 
slave, still enjoys the same tenure, unless debarred by some 
statute of limitations. By virtue of this law, nobody can 
legally suffer for want of sufficient food, clothing, or shelter, 
and all our charitable institutions are therefore out of place. 
When man refuses to recognise justice, no pouring out of 
charity can avail. The recognition of line-fences or inter- 
national bounds is as impracticable as it is useless ; for every 
new-comer into the world, every new claimant for his share 
of the means of subsistence, would have the effect of changing 
every boundary-line and fence on the face of the earth, if 
Humanitism became an universal sj^stem ; and every death 
Avould lead to the same complications, as would also the 
varying quantities of food consumed between birth and de- 
crepitude. So long as each individual draws the income from 
his parcel of land, it does not concern him where it is located. 
The right to draw on land, the means of subsistence, is in- 
separable from the right to exist that is, there can be no 
line of demarcation between the area of land required to pro- 
duce our bodies and souls and that required to maintain them 
in health and strength. If this proposition is not true, then 
what tribunal is to decide at what period in our life the mill- 
stone is to be tied around our neck and cast into the sea] 
"Who amongst us is to be the first to undergo this ordeal? 

This chapter would not be complete without a word about 
the land and conscience monopoly of the Church. Feudalism 
and the Church developed side by side during the Middle 
Ages, and the decline of both institutions is also conspicuous 
for their simultaneous transition into modern history. The 
one was a necessary counterpart of the other, both from the 
political and the moral point of view. Those gigantic land 
monopolists, the priests, often acquired their titles through 
other schemes than directly through the Deity. Much of 
their land had been originally granted to them by princes ; 


and they also derived large revenues from votive offerings 
or voluntary gifts, and customary incomes of various other 
kinds. During the expeditions of the Crusaders, they accumu- 
lated vast treasures; and fortunes were saved or acquired 
by saying masses in the families of the nobility. From the 
fourth to the tenth centuries the clergy were regarded as a 
privileged class, free from feudal burdens ; but after the tentli 
century they became liable, except through purchased im- 
munity, to military service for their estates. Their possessions 
thus being feudalised, the clergy were classed as vassals of 
the kings; but, as the Pope maintained, the Church was 
independent of the temporal power, which assumption gave 
rise to a series of struggles between the regal and papal 
sovereignties. The situation then became tripartite ; for 
there also existed a struggle between the king and his 
vassals, as already mentioned. During the thirteenth century 
science and philosophy began to reassert their sway, which 
also fell heavily upon the Church. The modern transition 
is marked by Protestantism, science, revolution, free-thought, 
economicism, and the evolution of serfdom into free slavery. 

The land titles of the Church, one would think, coming 
more or less directly from the Deity, were as absolute as can 
be imagined, and yet, by some mysterious working of natural 
law, the clergy cannot hold land more firmly in their grasp 
than our temporal lords. Tithes have been resisted with 
the same vehemence as other rents, despite all the terrors of 
boycotting formerly called excommunication and stringent 
laws have been passed for the punishment of those who so 
pervertently attempted to defraud the Church, as agent of the 
Deity, of her spiritual dues. The Church has lost all legal 
and spiritual title to her tithes; for there remains not a 
vestige of the ancestral tithe-principle, and Jahveh has long 
since refused to rebuke the devourer " who eateth and spoileth 
the fruit of your ground, and your vineyard shall no more 
be barren in the field," and to pour out those other abundant 
blessings due to the offering-givers and tithe-payers. One 
of the profoundest of all politico-theological problems is to 
determine how the royal crown and the sacerdotal stole, 
both emanating from the same Deity, became hereditary with, 


respect to the former and non-hereditary with respect to the 

The tithe system, however, has had the advantage of 
furnishing respectable employment for lawyers, as well as 
ecclesiastical judges, free from the contamination of servile 
labour, and our politicians have received their compensations 
in the respectable and congenial employment of passing 
various Acts for the relief of the clergy and the punishment 
of those who were so unscrupulous as to dodge the payment of 
tithes. Despite the violent struggles which have taken place 
between Church and State, the clergy and the lords, they 
have formed a friendly bond to maintain their ranks and titles, 
to achieve monopoly, and to rob posterity. Land and con- 
science monopolies stand or fall together. Feudalism, so re- 
volting to the moral sense, would have melted away like 
a snowflake beneath the summer's noonday sun had we not 
been bound in our conscience to obey our masters '-'the 
powers that be," which are " ordained of God." When we 
are permitted to look behind the scenes when we see that 
religion is no longer boxed up within coffin-walls and clothed 
in dead languages, that theology and law are no longer 
buttoned up in silken gowns, and that justice is no longer 
hatched on woolsacks then will dawn the age of science and 

Far be it from me to condemn the Church as having been 
a useless institution. The excessive objectivity which ladened 
Greece and Eome with decay and ruin, and the unnatural 
subjectivity which left the Jew without a clod whereon to 
lay his head, must be carefully weighed in the social balance. 
Feudalism itself, as well as Christianity, was a necessity of 
the age ; the excessive objectivity required the restraint of 
some subjective element. The Church, although herself en- 
gaged in objective enterprises as daring as those of military 
adventurers, exercised a morally beneficial influence over her 
tame flocks, and inspired them to many virtuous deeds. She 
deserves our compassion for the good she has done in awaken- 
ing our sympathetic instincts, but she equally merits our 
censure for her persistent efforts to perpetuate the structure 
when the function is gone. She preserved a spiritual bond 


amongst the nations after the political bond had been snapped 
asunder a link which may yet be welded into a chain of 
steel for the embrace of all humanity. 

The Catholico-feudal page of the history of our race will 
not go down to posterity as a landmark of human progress. 
The system is the legitimate parent of economicism, which 
will mark a retrogressive period the transition from serfdom 
to economic slavery, and the equally pernicious imbecility of 
lordly pomp and demoralisation, with its tendency to harden 
our hearts and make us callous to untold agony and woe. It 
has imbibed no humane ideas with regard to human rights, 
but has intensified human wrongs. The transition to spiritual 
individualism, marked by the Protestant era, is merely proto- 
typed by the transition from big landlordism to little land- 
lordism from vast estates to peasant proprietorship ; and so 
far as science and humanity are concerned, it makes little 
difference whether the individual is his own priest and prophet 
or hires highly-toned and lettered functionaries to point out 
the way to everlasting salvation. Our rulers, the landed 
lords, have manipulated affairs for their own selfish ends, and 
have only succumbed from time to time under the severest 
pressure. It would be folly to expect a different policy even 
now. Attached to the land are hereditary castes and cere- 
monies without which the estates would lose their charm and 
great value. Let these customs disappear and the land titles 
also vanish; for feudal estates in land can only be made 
"absolute" by a return to the antiquated system in all its 
purity and entirety. 

The assertion that the Catholico-feudal economic period of 
human history will mark a retrogressive era is, however, to 
be taken in the limited sense. With respect to universal 
evolution in the life of which this era is but a potent throb, 
a progressive impress will be stamped ; for the knowledge 
acquired by the experience of the past two thousand years 
will enable us to escape manifold dangers in all the ages to 



HAVING pointed out the importance of land in relation to 
the social problem, no apology will be required for devoting a 
chapter to agriculture. It may be asked, however, what this 
subject has to do with abstract theories, or what right I have 
to classify it under abstract methods. If I can show that the 
mainspring of all our actions can be traced to the theories 
of ideas, no discussion can arise. It is sometimes said that 
science rules the world, which assertion is contrary to fact. 
We are controlled by economicism, and scientists are still, for 
the most part, economic men. They search that they may 
know rather than that they may act ; or, so far as action is 
applicable to their researches, they are labouring in the 
service of economic men even more so than the Scholastics 
formerly laboured in the service of the Church. Until science 
shakes itself from the fetters of economicism, just as peremp- 
torily and effectually as it has done from the fetters of the 
Church, no step can be taken towards the solution of the 
social problem. There is no sense in knowing how it may be 
solved unless we turn our knowledge to practical account. 

Agriculture is important to us in many ways. It is the 
occupation through which we obtain the necessities of life. 
Had man remained in his natural state, no other occupation 
would have been necessary for his existence, although a 
variety of other occupations could have been made conducive 
to the development of his structures and functions. The fact 
that agriculture is the basis of our existence should be suf- 
ficient to convince our economic theorists that an economic 
basis must have a short career. Pastoral employments remind 
us of the rural simplicity, with its attendant pleasures, which 


characterised the " wisdom of our fathers," and of the dignity 
and grandeur upon which poets in all ages have loved to dwell. 
They remind us of the fact that the philosophers of ancient 
Greece, so lauded to the skies by the abstract thinkers of 
modern times, imperatively condemned economicism, choosing 
agriculture as the basis of national prosperity and of human 
progress. These very philosophers, whom we delight to call 
heathens, saw " with that inner eye which no calamity could 
darken," the terrible consequences with which economic rule 
would be fraught ; and although their predictions have been 
fully verified, yet we still continue to boast of our civilisa- 
tion, and of the theories through which it has been achieved. 
These results should stimulate our theorists to dip more deeply 
into the fount of philosophic inspiration unsealed by their 
heathen brethren in ancient Greece. 

It is out of place in this chapter to review the origin and 
development of universal agriculture. What we require to 
know here is the effects of economicism upon the modern 
agriculture, and for this purpose it is necessary to trace the 
evolution from pioneer times to the present day. This, again, 
involves another question, namely, the relation between primi- 
tive simplicity and happiness. Has human happiness kept 
pace with economicism 1 We speak about the increase of life's 
comforts, which is largely a question of temperature ; indeed, 
the whole question of happiness or pleasure may be strikingly 
illustrated by variations of temperature, and the scientific 
aspect of the inquiry is, Should we accommodate ourselves to 
natural temperatures, or can we bend them into conformity 
with our artificial conditions ? This is again the old, old story 
of objectivity and subjectivity. For example, in England 
probably it would be more correct to say London the most 
agreeable temperature is about 65 Fahr. ; at 70 it begins to 
swelter, and at 60 we begin to shudder with cold, if we are 
not warmly clothed and muffled. On the other hand, the 
pioneer in a cold climate feels comfortable whether the tem- 
perature be at zero or 90 Fahr., and work does not become a 
burden to him at either of these extremes. The temperature 
of his house may range at least between 35 and 80 without 
his experiencing discomfort while he is enjoying repose, even 


without a change of clothing, and any sudden changes in the 
weather produce no deleterious consequences. Is it now not 
absurd to say that the Londoner under a temperature of 65 
is happier or more comfortable than the pioneer under 55 
or 75? But we are not dependent upon the modern pioneer 
for an illustration of this sort. I may again be permitted to 
mention the name of Socrates although I have been baffled 
in my attempts to ascertain whether he was a religionist or a 
philosopher whom the Delphic oracle in ancient times, and 
the greatest of economic and Utilitarian philosophers in modern 
times (John Stuart Mill), pronounced to be the wisest of the 
Greeks or, which is the same tiling, the wisest of men. Let 
us now tear a leaf from the life of this wisest man of all the 

Socrates in the campaign at Potidsea exhibited a power of 
endurance unequalled by all the other soldiers in the camp. 
When provisions were short he fasted with the least com- 
plaint, and when a feast was the order of the day he ate and 
drank in the heartiest manner. During one night in a severe 
Macedonian winter there was a keen frost, and while the 
other soldiers stayed within or went out comfortably clad in 
sheepskin jackets and felt shoes, Socrates alone walked about 
in the open air, clad only in a common mantle, and, with his 
bare feet, trod the frozen ground more alertly than those 
whose feet were warmly sheltered. On another occasion he 
went out early one morning to engage in contemplation ; but, 
the object appearing very abstruse, he remained standing 
and looked straight before him till near midday, when the 
soldiers noticed him. Towards evening, some of the lonians, 
bedding themselves in quilts and carpets, slept out of the 
camp with a view of keeping an eye on the philosopher, and 
when they awoke in the morning with the rising of the sun 
there he was found standing in the same spot ; and having 
offered a prayer to the sun, retired. 

With reference to the military bravery exhibited by 
Socrates, which was as great as his moral courage, nothing 
need be said here. All I wish to illustrate is, that happiness 
is a matter of habit, and can be attained without leading a 
life of economic indulgence. Economic happiness has a very 



limited range ; it is the forerunner of pain in the indulger 
himself, and his condition is painful to all beholders who are 
moved by loftier aspirations. It is needless to repeat that 
the more limited the sphere in which a person moves the 
more land and labour he requires for his support. 

In going back to pioneer days, I may confine my observa- 
tions within the memory of men still living, who, in their 
early days, did not live under economic rule. I will select 
a territory in the colder regions of North America, which 
will bring the subject home to ourselves, because it includes 
a large portion of our greatest colony, Canada. I do not 
intend to insinuate that pioneer life is not still progressing in 
the more northerly and westerly regions, but they are no ro- 
under the economic dispensation. It would be unnatural to 
suppose that our agricultural ideas are sound when we are so 
exceedingly unscientific in matters pertaining to economics, 
dietetics, and rights. 

Although it is true that land monopoly preceded the 
pioneer on American soil, the most gigantic of all the mono- 
polists being the State, and in Canada there were also the 
Hudson's Bay Company and the Canada Company, yet, 
owing to the vast areas of fertile land, and consequently to 
its low value, the effects of land monopoly could not be 
appreciably felt, there being many million acres of free home- 
steads as well as other lands which could be purchased for 
nominal sums of money. Land values then developed on 
account of prospective pioneers rather than of those who 
had already settled. These pioneers had to work hard, as 
everybody should do, but there was no poverty, and every- 
body enjoyed the fruits of his labour. As all the neighbours 
were on the same social level, there was nothing to mar their 
harmony. No laws were required, and each was always ready 
and willing to help all, and all each. The only professional 
gentleman required was the clergyman ; and as for the mer- 
chant, he was far off, his functions being extremely limited. 
He was usually himself also a pioneer engaged in agriculture, 
and as economic ideas had hardly been imported, his sym- 
pathies were with those with whom he daily intercoursed. 
Indeed, had his customers from the " Old Country " not been 


economic men originally, his stock-in-trade would have been 
a miserable spectacle. These sturdy bushmen, and especially 
their families, evaded colds, not on account of their scientific 
knowledge of ventilation, but because the wind and snow blew 
through every chink in the log-walls. Their home-spun gar- 
ments were scanty, not from necessity but from choice, for the 
wearers were capable of motion during their working hours, 
and by their strong vital system they were able to digest 
their food, thus chasing the cold away by the generating of 
heat within their bodies. The children needed no boots even 
in winter, so long as they were permitted to climb the snow- 
banks, chase one another, or run races with the dogs after 
the flocks and herds ; and their hands needed no protection, 
even while handling brush under the snow in the woods. la 
summer, the boys and girls went to school with their lower 
extremities, below the knees, bare ; and yet they felt not 
ashamed, for their virtue was as strong as their physical 
powers of endurance. They needed no shoes while racing 
over gravel or corduroy roads, because sandals grew on the 
soles of their feet. Should their bare hands become cold 
during winter " snaps," they warmed them by casting snow- 
balls at one another, or at objects along the way. In order 
to enjoy their higher education, they often travelled three or 
four miles to school, and even farther, the parents being the 
teachers of the elementary branches. These pioneers needed 
no lawyers, because there was nobody to foment quarrels, 
and. disputes about line-fences and title-deeds had not yet 
begun; and as for the doctor, it is even disputed at the 
present day whether he is an improvement on the pioneer's 
granny. Indeed, these very grandmothers, if they made a 
profession of their craft and drew professional fees, would, 
owing to the limited number of their patients, have become 
the first paupers known within the sphere of their activity. 
The bushmen needed no flouring-mills, for they had teeth to 
do their grinding, although the pepper-mill was also utilised 
for this kind of work. They needed no sugar, because they 
were able to masticate their food until its starch became con- 
verted into this dainty, and, failing this, they had abundance 
of fruit full of juicy sugar. The sugar made from the sap of 


the maple-tree was mostly for sale, although some families 
consumed considerable quantities of maple syrup. They did 
not need meat or butter, because the children were able to 
climb large forest trees for nuts, and also delighted in nut- 
gathering expeditions, although the carcass of a sheep or 
a hog, suspended against the house walls, often adorned 
the surroundings. There was nothing to mar the harmony 
of the neighbourly gatherings in the family homes, which 
developed into school-house clubs, because there was only 
one grade of societjr, and the era of economicism had not yet 
dawned. At the to-and-fro excursions during these social and 
literary gatherings, there was nothing to disquiet the stillness 
of the moonlit scenery except the jingling of the horse-bells 
and the mirthful voices of the youthful excursionists ; and an 
occasional upset, spilling the occupants of the sleigh into the 
snow, was the culmination of all the merriments. In short, 
our pioneer heroes and heroines scarcely knew any object in 
life except happiness, and they possessed the requisite health 
and strength to enjoy it to their heart's content. 

But these were the days anterior to the dynasty of econo- 
micism, and civilisation had not yet begun to dawn. Beyond 
municipal matters, little interest was taken in politics. Then 
came the politician clamouring for " vote and influence," and 
gave, by way of compensation, trinkets and kisses to the 
babies. The mothers whose babies were not so sweet or 
fortunate as to become the recipients of political gifts had no 
alternative than to buy dolls and other child-appeasing toys at 
the village store. In this manner the mother performed two 
righteous deeds : (i) she raised herself to the same social level 
as her bribed neighbour, and (2) she encouraged manufacture 
and trade. The village storekeeper, through expansion in the 
volume of his trade, could now afford to attire his children 
in doll-like fashion ; and when they thus met the rustics in 
the village or country school, the latter felt so alarmed that 
they could no longer go to school without a fig-leaf to hide 
their shame. The storekeeper, maintaining the style of com- 
fort observed in the city where his business duties called him 
from time to time, now becomes the centre of the social circle 
in his locality. Indeed, in the lapse of time, the doctor and 


the lawyer no longer considered it beneath their dignity to 
settle in the village ; and although the inhabitants are still 
too sparse for their support in the style befitting their pro- 
fessions, yet their rural patients and clients are rapidly on the 
increase, so that the respectability of these professions is 
maintained. The village council soon begin to devise means 
for the increase of population ; for, as absolute owners of 
town lots, as well as for professional and commercial con- 
siderations, they become convinced that this policy is a 
masterpiece of sagacity. But in order to attract population 
there must be something for the people to do, and high wages 
and high profits on investments must be promised. There not 
being sufficient clerkships to induce a material increase of 
numbers, there must be manufacture which occupation is 
only a r step or two lower in the scale of respectability than 
that of the merchant and here is also an excellent oppor- 
tunity for gaining the ear of the farmers. As there is no 
use of manufacture without trade, a linking with the world's 
commerce if possible, the council offers a bonus to any person 
or company who will erect a doll-factory, providing the 
farmers grant a bonus to a railway corporation which will 
carry the surplus dolls to a point which will connect the 
village with the world's markets. By this scheme three 
advantages are to accrue to the farmers, i. The manufac- 
turer of dolls will consume their butter and eggs at their 
own doors, thus opening up a home market. 2. The rail- 
way will carry said butter and eggs to the world's markets. 
3. The development of the village into a city, caused by the 
manufacture of dolls, will offer opportunities for respectable 
employment for the farmers' sons ; whereas, without such 
opportunities, the boys and girls will have to go west and 
take up land far away from the dear old spot which gave 
them birth, and all the lands within the borders of civilised 
communities being monopolised and held vacant for higher 
prices, the only resort is that the youths must settle amongst 
the wild beasts. The scheme sustained, the population of the 
village, now grown into a town, is increased by the importa- 
tion of money-lenders and their agents, and the volume of law 
business becomes enormously increased. The rapid growth 


and prospects of the town, and especially the granting of ad- 
ditional bonuses, attract more merchants and manufacturers, 
more town-lot speculators, and a motley crowd ; the farm 
mortgagee becomes an important and influential citizen, and 
the town, encouraged by more extensive business facilities, 
leaps into a city. All the inhabitants are taxed, directly or 
indirectly, to maintain the upward tendency of land values 
for the benefit of a few owners ; journalists are engaged to 
" boom up " the enormous advantages which the city offers to 
enterprising and industrious men, and the vast agricultural 
and mineral resources of the surrounding country. Seventy- 
five per cent, of the farm lands is mortgaged to one-half of 
their value, partly to maintain this splendour, partly to educate 
the boys and girls for respectable occupations, and partly to 
maintain the style of living demanded by the circumstance of 
proximity to a city of such proud pretensions. Meanwhile, 
however, other towns spring up, which offer still larger bonuses, 
thus inducing manufacturers to leave the great city; the 
collapse comes, followed by the pernicious consequences due 
to all such catastrophes. Without a moment's warning, the 
wealth sinks from millions to tens of thousands simply due 
to a freak in human desire. 

But these consequences are merely preliminary to the more 
startling effects of economic evangelism. The farmer has 
evolved into an economic man, indulging in the usual luxuries, 
and the greatest ornament on his farm is the mortgage. Some 
of the boys have learned respectable trades or professions, 
and the girls are also rising in the social scale, for they have 
learned to make fashionable dresses for ladies and dolls, or 
to deal out articles by weight or measure over the counter. 
One of the boys, however, has disgraced the family by becoming 
a pedagogue ; but this is only a temporary loss of respectability, 
for as soon as the farm can stand additional mortgaging, he 
will commence to study one of the respectable professions. 
The boy in the family whose ambition for respectability is 
least developed remains on the farm. Our locality has now 
developed into the second generation, the old pioneers having 
retired, leaving the farm management in the hands of the 
boys, and many of them have gone to that abode of happiness 


of which the clergyman has so often spoken, and about which 
he has so often preached. The respectable members of the 
i'amily pay occasional visits to the old homestead ; but as 
their aged parents, or their brothers and families Avho now 
conduct the farm, are much lower in the social scale, being 
also deficient in education, the visits cease to become enjoy- 
able, and a rupture takes place in the relationship. But, 
social ambition now being aroused, better days are in store 
for the home-keeping youths whose wits have remained so 
homely. Having failed to pay off the mortgages by deforest- 
ing and cropping nearly all the land, thus depriving the crops 
of protection, causing the fountains and springs to dry up, 
and making the rainfall uncertain and irregular, as well as 
encouraging all sorts of insects injurious to the weakened 
agricultural plants, other methods of agriculture have to be 
resorted to. The soil becomes exhausted through many years 
of excessive cropping, and a school of scientific agriculture 
has to be established. The scientific professors having failed 
to restore the robbery of the soil, and of the vitality of the 
agricultural plants, by means of artificial fertilisers, grass now 
being the most natural plant, agriculture proper develops into 
stock-raising. The theory is, that stock manure is the only 
fertiliser which will restore the fertility of the soil ; and the 
ancient motto, "More stock, more manure; more manure, 
more grass," is put into practice. The live-stock era is now 
inaugurated, and the " battle of the breeds " rages with great 
fury. The owners of " scrub " stock fall into disrepute, and 
the only respectable branch of agriculture is the keeping of 
stock with long pedigrees and fancy prices. The rise and 
collapse of stock " booms," which have developed into specu- 
lative methods, based on the soundest principles of political 
economy, have probably been more disastrous to our agri- 
cultural interests than all other influences combined. The 
tinkering with herd-books alone, the constant entries and 
erasures of so-called "spurious pedigrees," and the gigantic 
frauds connected therewith, accruing to the advantage of a 
few soulless individuals and corporations, are more than any 
legitimate industry can stand, and the false records of per- 
formances in the battle of the milking breeds carry their own 


doom. Some of these breeds are excellent at the start of 
their career ; but through incessant stuffing and drugging 
they lose their vitality, engender disease, and then their race 
is run. 

We have here struck another dualism, the solution of which 
is of vital importance in connection with the social problem. 
According to the agricultural theory, stock must be raised in 
order to produce manure ; otherwise the fertility of the soil 
cannot be maintained. I am not here going to deny that 
chemical fertilisers have not always produced profitable re- 
sults ; but, as we shall see in a later chapter, our agricultural 
scientists have made exactly the same mistake as our orthodox 
doctors when they accepted chemistry as the basis of agri- 
culture instead of biology that is, they accept physical and 
neglect vital laws, and these apply to plant as well as animal 
life. Now, if we must raise domestic animals in order to pro- 
duce manure, and, as we have seen, their flesh is not fitted 
for human consumption, then the question becomes dualistic, 
namely : i. Must animals be raised merely as manure machines 
and their carcasses fed to hogs or utilised as fertilisers 1 
2. Must the putting on of flesh be the primary object, the 
manure being a secondary consideration, and the carcass 
consumed by human beings merely because it is cheap, not 
because it is fitted for food. In short, which is the basis the 
manure or the flesh ? If animals must be raised for manure, 
of course their flesh must then be cheap. This question, 
however, is the economic, not the scientific. Taking social 
conditions as they now stand, there are agricultural professors 
who maintain that the manure is the main consideration in 
stock-raising, and yet these very same authorities are iu 
favour of the thoroughbreds. The pure breeds of stock are 
not defended because they are greater consumers than the 
so-called " scrubs," but because they yield better results from 
the same quantity of food. This is a ridiculous position; for 
if the results are better so far as beef or milk is concerned, 
they must be correspondingly less concerning the production 
of manure, for the same nutrients in the food cannot pro- 
duce both beef (or milk) and manure. When manure is the 
basis, the professors are therefore obliged to accept the breeds 


which are the lowest beef or milk producers, and when beef 
or milk is the basis, they are obliged to accept the breeds 
which are the lowest manure-producers. From the practical 
standpoint, however, farmers always insist upon large yields 
of beef and milk, and are so indifferent about the manure 
that many of them do not exert themselves to save it. This 
same question, moreover, is closely allied with the theories 
of population. If, for example, a breed of domestic animals 
could be developed which deposited as manure all the food 
consumed, then, the manure all being saved from waste, the 
soil might become so fertile that there could be little or no 
limit to the population a given area could sustain, especially 
if the manure-producing animals became so numerous that no 
land could be spared for the raising of other animals. Pos- 
sibly it would not be unwise for the Malthusians to take up this 
argument in proof of their theories. Such utter nonsense is 
quite characteristic of abstract methods of thinking, and is 
scarcely paralleled by the idea that scarcity is the basis of 
wealth. The absurdity to which the manure theory leads 
could only have originated in the abstract conception that 
man's life is sustained differently from that of other animals, 
he being of supernatural origin. 

This theory became so prevalent amongst agricultural 
authorities and practical farmers that I deemed it my duty in 
other writings 1 to expose its fallacy; and as my conclusions 
have been accepted by some leading agricultural authorities 
and disputed by none, it is not necessary to enter into detail 
here. Besides, the discussion is too lengthy and technical to 
be introduced here, so that I shall confine my observations to 
the points which I discussed in the writings referred to as 
follows: i. Animals can return nothing to the soil which 
they did not previously take out of it in their food, and the 
returns in the form of manure must therefore be less than the 
fertility removed by the quantity of beef and dairy produce 
sold off the farm. 2. The quantity of produce sold off the 
farm or not returned to the soil is the measure of soil- 
exhaustion. 3. When the land produces the heaviest pos- 

1 Stock-Raising and Grain-Growing in relation to Soil Fertility and 


sible yield of stock foods, the soil-exhaustion is much greater 
than can possibly take place through grain - growing ; but 
when grain (e.g., wheat) reaches the maximum yield, while 
the stock foods (hay, roots, &c.) are light crops, then soil 
becomes more rapidly exhausted by growing grain. 4. The 
soil may increase in productiveness and at the same time lose 
in fertility, due to the fact that the returns in the form of 
manure are more soluble and available as plant food than the 
same constituents would have been had they remained in their 
original insoluble condition. 5. Entirely apart from these con- 
siderations, it is not possible to save all the manure, and 
in practice one-half to two-thirds of the manure is wasted. 

Farmers who raise large herds on small areas find that they 
can raise heavier crops than their neighbours who constantly 
raise grain, and they then rush to the conclusion that the 
fertility of their soil is being increased by stock-raising ; but 
such a practice cannot be indefinitely sustained unless stock 
foods are purchased, which leads to a robbery of other farms. 
It is quite true that one farmer can increase the fertility of 
his farm at the expense of his neighbours, but the same 
results can be attained without stock-raising. Indeed, Britain 
is acting on this principle to-day ; she scours nearly the whole 
earth for foods and fertilisers, thus robbing other countries, 
especially America, of their scientific wealth. The result of 
this process is, that Britain can sustain an increased popula- 
tion, but the population of the world cannot be increased. 
As a proof that stock foods are more exhaustive on the soil 
so far as nitrogen is concerned, the standard rations in my 
chapter on population may be compared, when it will be found 
that about 50 per cent, more protein per acre is abstracted 
from the soil in the stock ration than in the human ration ; 
and even then it must be borne in mind that in the stock 
ration only the digestible protein has been reckoned. In order 
to make the comparison a fair one, the total protein being 
reckoned in both rations, the exhaustion would be over 80 
per cent, instead of 50 per cent, more in stock rations than in 
those of human beings. However, if half of the stock manure 
is returned to the soil, while all the human excrements are 
wasted, that is another question. 


I shall now, however, even take it for granted, for tlie sake 
of argument, that my conclusions on the manure question are 
all false, and yet neither the Malthusians nor the agricultural 
professors have the ghost of an argument to depend on. If 
they can increase the fertility of the soil by raising stock, I 
can do exactly the same thing by raising human beings. If 
they can save the manure, I can save the excrements. If they 
argue that the excrements are more filthy than the manure, 
then I admit that they are right if they have reference to 
economic men who eat meat and cook their food ; but as my 
human animals can get no meat and must live at least as 
naturally as domestic animals, the manure and the excrements 
are on the same level in point of respectability. The excre- 
ments from economic men are also more valuable than the 
manure from domestic animals, for when foods are cooked or 
bolted, much of their nutritive properties and constituents 
is wasted. Thus we find that there is not one scientific 
argument in favour of stock-raising ; on the contrary, there 
are objectionable features connected with every issue. Of 
course, it gives employment to many labourers ; but, as we 
shall see, this is also very objectionable, and if I cannot find 
more respectable employment, I will admit the weakness of 
my system. 

This discussion would not be complete without a word 
dealing more especially with the moral aspect of the question. 
The attempt to persuade farmers to raise stock merely as 
manure machines having proved futile for they would prefer 
animals which could convert all their food into beef or milk, 
thus producing no manure the agitation had to be kept up 
by other methods. The manure-machine theory was not a 
practical question amongst farmers who depended upon their 
beef and milk to pay the interest on their mortgages ; and 
the science of soil-exhaustion was too technical a problem. 
The only means of escape was to drift into the hysterical 
method, just as the father of neo-Platonism solved the philo- 
sophic dualism. In America the spasmodic method of con- 
ciliating a dualism is called a "boom." History is full of 
such illustrations, some of which I have already pointed out, 
and many of our political economists, finding natural laws to 


be more potent than their theories, have swooned away into 
happiness. If the sun's spots are the cause of commercial 
crises, and if they cannot change these spots, why do they not 
seek some other employment ? Reasoning from analogy, it 
will now be quite natural for some agricultural professor to 
suggest that our agricultural depressions are caused by the 
man in the moon. Stock-raising having assumed the essential 
characteristics of a trade, it carries the idea of respectability, 
and is thus practically no longer a branch of agriculture. The 
idea of being in some way connected with pedigrees tends to 
elevate the social standing of the stockman, although he may 
not be able to trace his own pedigree beyond his grandmother, 
and the making of a voyage to England for the purpose of 
purchasing a famous cow or hog, thus also getting his name 
into print, places his position of respectability beyond all 
question. In order that these animals may be kept in a con- 
dition worthy of their noble blood and distinguished ancestry, 
they must undergo a process of development, the end of which 
is not yet quite reached, but may be illustrated by the life of 
the Strasburg goose, 1 where "50,000 geese are fed annually for 
the purpose of providing diseased livers for European gluttons. 
The aim in feeding this goose is to produce as much fat as 
possible, where it specially accumulates on the liver, produc- 
ing fatty degeneration of that organ and the tissues of the 
body ; and for this purpose the victim is closely confined in 
a coop, or rather a small department thereof, where it has 
scarcely room to move, the head projecting through an aper- 
ture. The coop, with its inmate, is then placed in a dark and 
hot cellar. The fattiest foods are given such as maize soaked 
in water; charcoal and salt are put into the drink- water, and 
the mess is squirted down the bird's throat. In four or five 
weeks the creature grows morbidly stout, and can hardly 
breathe. When the victim of this shocking cruelty is slaugh- 
tered, the liver weighs between one and two pounds, and 
three to five pounds of fat may be roasted out of its body. 
A visitor to any of our Christmas fat-stock shows cannot fail 
to perceive that the Strasburg goose is the logical conclusion 

1 This goose has been known from Roman times, and is widely known 
in France, where it is fed for pdte de joic gras. 


of our live-stock industry ; and the authorities may be con- 
gratulated on the rapidity with which they are approaching 
this ideal. The feeding of cows for milking competitions is 
approaching the same standard. The test of one cow for a 
period of seven days is made to decide the yearly milking 
capacity of the whole breed, and is used as an argument 
against other stock, pedigreed and unpedigreed. The object 
is not to arrive at any truth, but to hoist the price of the 
breed ; and the herd-books are so manipulated as to limit the 
number of pure stock, thereby, in sympathy with the soundest 
principles of political economy, increasing wealth by making 
its commodities scarce ; and many newspaper editors are in- 
duced to countenance and support this method of wealth-pro- 
duction. These animals are entitled to draw on a sufficient 
area of land for their support, which correspondingly reduces 
the area for millions of unpedigreed human beings. If any 
mortal creatures ever suffered the consequences of their ignor- 
ance and stupidity, it will be those who have attempted to 
establish pure breeds of dumb brutes and rank them between 
the upper and lower classes of human beings. 

While we are staring at ourselves and at one another in 
boastful admiration of man's power over the dumb brutes over 
their plasticity in his hands what is taking place 1 The vital 
functions of the animals are being impaired, and the tendency 
to diseased obesity an accumulation of effete material in the 
system caused by insufficient exercise and excessive gluttony 
is regarded as a measure of the improvement of the breed. 
Even if these huge layers of fatty degeneration were fit for 
human consumption, they would be quite inconsistent with 
the orthodox theory that protein is the most valuable nutrient 
in human rations ; and when such " baby-beef " is defended 
on the ground of the greater tenderness of its muscular 
tissue, the argument is only a proof of the degenerated con- 
dition of the consumer's vital powers. The milking qualities 
and the fecundity of the breed are diminished, disease follows, 
the breed falls into disrepute without compensation to the 
owners, and some hitherto obscure and unpedigreed variety 
is pushed to the front, only to undergo a similar career. 

The intrigue, however, is good for trade, gives respectable 


employment to a host of veterinary surgeons, Royal Com- 
missioners, and other Government officials, and strengthens 
the powers of the politicians who are engaged in the discus- 
sion of measures for the prevention and spread of contagious 
diseases. The system is another comment on man's super- 
natural powers of objectivity his mastery over the laws of 
nature. In his way of thinking, the animal which possesses 
the highest economic value can be made, by much cherishing, 
the fittest to survive. 

Despite the uselessness of live-stock from every point of 
view, they are always classified in the category of our national 
wealth. By reckoning the enormous areas of land required 
for their support, the number of factories, farm buildings, 
hedges, fences, the quantity of labour, tools, machinery, and 
other fixtures, conveniences, comtorts, and appendages, and, 
above all, their influence as wasters of soil-fertility, there re- 
mains but one conclusion, namely, that they are the greatest 
destroyers of wealth which a nation can sustain. Even 
setting aside the scientific view, stock-raising cannot be de- 
fended from the economic standpoint, for wealth could be 
equally increased by making scarce those other commodities 
required by the immensely increased population caused by 
the removal of domestic animals. 

We thus find the same law operating in the extinction of 
pedigreed human beings and pedigreed domestic animals ; 
but the case is different with reference to the unpedigreed 
varieties. In the former instance, the tendency to extinction 
is caused by drawing on too much land and labour, while in 
the latter instance there is a tendency to degeneracy and 
consequent extinction of the poorer classes of human beings 
caused by the lack of power or liberty to draw on sufficient 
land for their support ; although, with reference to the un- 
pedigreed varieties of domestic animals, they usually enjoy 
sufficient land for their support, neither too much nor too 
little, and are therefore the fittest to survive. In this respect 
they are substantially on the same footing as slaves. Chattel 
slavery is not inconsistent with the perpetuity of the enslaved 
race ; on the contrary, the reverse is the case, for it is the 
tendency of masters to force their slaves to exercise their 


structures to the fullest tension without strain, the rations 
allowed being also conducive to the same end, and this is 
precisely the natural law of development. It is the interest 
of the slave-owners to preserve this nice medium, although, 
through ignorance, the requisite degree of perfection is seldom 
attained. Development is measured (i) by land area, and 
(2) by exercise of function, the former being the physical 
and the latter the moral aspect, and they are closely related 
to each other. It is not an error to include labour in the 
category of land, for the area required for a person's support 
cannot be increased or diminished without affecting labour, 
the only question to be decided being how far the areas are 
chargeable to those who draw on more land, or what returns 
they make for the absorption of their chosen quantities of 
land and labour how far they are chargeable with the land 
required to support the horse which or the slave who works 
their parcel of land. 

If this economic law of extinction were confined to domes- 
tic animals, the results, apart from the shocking cruelty of 
the method, would be more beneficial than otherwise ; but 
unfortunately economic forces are also operating upon our 
agricultural plants. In our blind attempts to force them to 
survive after they have become weakened through excessive 
fostering, we find ourselves engaged in constant warfare 
against all kinds of weeds which, by virtue of our very efforts 
to exterminate them, become the fittest to survive, because 
their struggles for existence become so much the greater. 
Their seeds and roots lie exposed during the most unfavour- 
able seasons, while the germs of our agricultural plants are 
comfortably housed ; and like our live-stock, the higher the 
price the tenderer the care bestowed on them, thus causing 
the fostered varieties to run out. The plumpest grains, 
which are the weakest and least nutritious, are used for re- 
production, and receive the highest prizes and awards at our 
agricultural exhibitions just on the same principle as that 
adopted by the judges at exhibitions of domestic animals 
the basis of the judgment being the ability of the grains or 
animals to please the eye. It is not surprising that popular 
indignation is so often aroused over such abstract conceptions 


of justice, and that opinions differ as widely as those advanced 
respecting happiness or other abstract qualities. The theories 
which have been advanced with reference to the milling pro- 
perties of different varieties of wheat have done more injury 
than the utter destruction of wheat and mills could possibly 
have done. And yet it is believed that the clamourings for 
justice at our agricultural exhibitions can be appeased by the 
appointment of one judge in each department instead of three. 
These exhibitions are not intended to benefit agriculture, but 
to draw crowds and to make money. They are purely specu- 
lative enterprises, and the methods of conducting them are 
purely economic. Another effect flowing from the diminished 
vitality of agricultural plants is the increase of all sorts of 
insects injurious to vegetation, whose havoc is the cause of 
intensifying alarm. The remedy for all these evils is supposed 
to be the establishment of agricultural colleges and experi- 
ment stations at the public expense. This method receives 
sanction because it encourages trade, the world being scoured 
for new varieties of plants and new breeds of stock, and 
respectable occupations are opened up for professors of agri- 
culture, dairying, botany, entomology, veterinary science, &c.; 
and the increased demand for legislators strengthens the 
" powers that be." It is no figure of speech to say that the 
reason why we have to struggle so hard for a living is because 
it is our desire to obtain the most wealth with the least 
labour. Under the persistence of economic and objective 
rule, the coming race of men will be that which can best 
subsist on weeds; and when they, in their turn, are brought 
under objective control, being cultivated like the agricultural 
plants of the present day, they will run the same course and 
suffer the same destiny. 

In England " grass is king," and we boast as much of our 
agricultural as our political monarchy. Least of all our agri- 
cultural plants is grass under artificial control, especially in 
permanent pastures, and this is the reason why he is king, 
and why all other plants are his subjects. The logical con- 
clusion of this state of things is, that our isles will eventually 
be overrun with grass, while our domestic animals, being 
under economic rule, must disappear, and we shall then find 


ourselves in our original state of barbarism, living on the flesh of 
wild beasts, should any species survive by escaping domestica- 
tion. But even we ourselves, as economic animals, cannot sur- 
vive to witness this event, and if the whole world by that time 
becomes civilised, our race cannot escape utter extinction. If 
grass is to remain the king of agricultural plants, the con- 
sumers of grass should, one would think, become the king of 
animals. But if domestic animals must go, as science has 
pointed out, king grass must go too, must be dethroned, and 
the manner of his going has already been sufficiently in- 

Agriculture is controlled by the same law which is bring- 
ing about the destruction of economicism the idea of man's 
supernatural power over nature, intensified by the theory that 
vital laws are subordinate to those of the physical world. 
The former is a mistake of philosophy and religion ; the latter 
a mistake of science. The increase of the world's food-supply 
during the past half-century is the most disastrous aspect of 
civilisation, and is due to three causes : i. The discovery of 
the value and uses of artificial fertilisers. 2. The rapid ex- 
pansion of cultivated areas and the enormous increase of live- 
stock 011 Western plains. 3. The improvement in agricul- 
tural machinery. Fertilisers increase the supply of available 
plant-food in the soil, and for some time may also increase 
the yield of crops ; but, owiug to the practice of making the 
phosphates soluble, the vitality of the plants becomes impaired, 
and the nitrogenous fertilisers cannot be perpetually substi- 
tuted for organic matter, so that, in the long-run, these 
fertilisers are more injurious than beneficial. The use of 
animal manures, which tend to exhaust the soil more rapidly 
than grain-growing, is the result of another pernicious theory ; 
and machinery only aids the other two forces in hastening the 
destruction of agriculture. So long as the soil's fertility is 
permitted to go to waste, there can be no remedy, and all 
our so-called agricultural improvements are a delusion. The 
reaction must come sooner or later, and then the sufferings 
caused by the pressure of population against the means of 
subsistence will be most intense. 



THE weaknesses of the State may be classed under three 
headings : i. The numerous theories which have been ad- 
vanced with reference to its functions, and the results of 
human action, based upon these theories, which have been 
entailed. 2. The same economic ills prevail under all forms 
of government. 3. The State has been controlled, through 
its rulers, by economic and other abstract theorists. 

It may be said that the weaknesses, contradictions, and 
absurdities of economic theories, which I have pointed out, 
are no arguments against the State, for it existed long 
before the age and reign of economicism. Very true ; but it 
cannot be denied that economicism is an evolution of prior 
forms of objectivity. If the laws of nature had been man's 
first discovery instead of the theories of ideas, and obedience 
thereto cultivated, the State, so far as our present conceptions 
thereof are concerned, could never have received origin or 
development. No statute law, "by the grace of God," has 
ever been enacted except in conflict with some law of nature. 
The farther we remove ourselves from the laws of our being 
and development, and the more we sever ourselves from the 
means of our subsistence, the greater becomes the necessity 
for the existence of the State. If, to-day, the disciples of 
abstraction drew their sustenance from the same source as 
their supernatural ideas, there would be no social problem to 
be solved. If our foods were divided into two classes, the 
scientists getting the products of the earth and the abstrac- 
tionists the manna from heaven, the social problem would be 
solved in forty days. It does not require half an eye to see 


that the greater the development of abstract theories, the 
more deplorable grows the social situation. 

It is important to understand the various theories which 
have been advanced with reference to the origin of the State, 
for its scope and functions have emanated from these theories. 
According to some political philosophers, the family is the 
model of the State, although without consanguinary relation- 
ship. This is the Patriarchal idea, the supreme ruler being 
the father of the governed, and all conceptions of humanity 
must therefore be excluded. The tribe is an extended family, 
including several groups of blood-relations, and the chief may 
be the hereditary head of a single family. Patriarchism, of 
which the Jews and Chinese are instances, is repugnant to the 
Aryan idea ; it tends to Imperial absolutism, blunts all noble 
aspirations, adheres too exclusively to the divinely ordained 
traditions and ceremonies, and allows pretext and scope for 
State interference in the most trivial affairs of the subject. 

In antiquity and during the Middle Ages the idea prevailed 
that the State was a divine institution, founded, governed, and 
maintained by God, who administered the affairs more or less 
directly. The king governed the State as God ruled the 
world. The same idea prevails in modern times, as may be 
gathered from the founding of the United States of America 
in Washington's Inaugural Speech to Congress, 1789 ; and the 
Senate, the House of Representatives, and the State Legisla- 
tures are still opened with prayer. In the Jewish theocracy 
the work was direct and through divine revelation. That the 
State was indirectly founded and governed by God was the 
theory of the Greeks and Romans. But although their in- 
stitutions were human, not theocratic, yet all public under- 
takings of importance were preceded, in ancient times, by 
prayer and sacrifice. The will of the Roman Gods was dis- 
covered through omens or auspices, indicated by the move- 
ments of birds, and the occurrence of thunder and lightning 
in certain portions of the sky. The Christian idea of the 
relation between Church and State is made plain by the words 
of Paul : " Let every soul be in subjection to the higher 
powers : for there is no power but God, and the powers that 
be are ordained of God" (Rom. xiii. i). The authority of 


our earthly rulers is therefore directly politico-divine, unless 
Christ's injunction, " Render unto Caesar the things that are 
Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's," has some 
modifying influence. The weakness of the theocratic theory, 
both the subjective and the objective phase, is the worship of 
earthly demigods, the palliation of all sorts of errors and 
abuses in the State, and the tendency to destroy individualism 
by absolutism. It divides society into masters and slaves, 
and encourages political philosophers to flatter despots. 

The theory that " might is right " is attended with iden- 
tical consequences, leading to the belief that there are no 
rights except those enjoyed by the strongest members of the 
State. This idea originated in a warlike age, and has special 
reference to physical strength ; but it is difficult to understand 
how it can be separated from the strength which the oppressed 
classes have acquired from time to time in the abolition of the 
coarsest phases of feudal iniquities. It is absurd to maintain 
that might acquired by the bullet is right, while might ac- 
quired by the ballot is wrong. Again, it is not necessarily 
correct to say, that the acquisition of this form of right is due 
to strength, for it may have its ground in the imbecility of 
those who are forced to abandon their rights. This principle 
is aptly illustrated by the French aristocracy and clergy, who, 
at the breaking out of the Revolution, were so weak and silly 
that they could but faintly grasp the idea of resistance. There 
is no law in nature by which right obtained by might can be 
perpetuated so long as the oppressed live more in harmony 
with the laws of their being and development than their op- 
pressors. It does not alter the case to say, that the strongest 
do not lay claim to their rights; for the extinction of the 
enjoyers of rights leads also to the extinction of their rights. 
The might-right theory leads to a constant test of strength 
between the oppressors and the oppressed ; it is vicious and 
barbarous in the extreme, and no hope for a solution of the 
social problem can be entertained so long as it sways the 
public mind. 

Then, again, we have the theory of contract or social com- 
pact, which operated fatally in the French Revolution. In 
this instance the individual surrenders his natural rights 


to the State in return for security. Tins is said to be the 
transition from the state of nature to the social state. Any 
form of evolution from the state of nature, directed in any 
channel whatever, could only have originated in the abstract 
theory that man is a supernatural animal, and is therefore not 
obliged to obey the laws of nature. The more this theory is 
developed, the sooner is the day of its doom. If the security 
of property is meant, then we are confronted with the question 
relating to the right to labour and accumulate property ; and 
if the security of person is meant, then I want to know what 
incentive there would be for aggression against the person 
except when it bears some relation to his property. In the 
discussion of this question, it is necessary to have a precise 
understanding as to whether the State is ordained of God or 
of the people whether it emanates from the dead or the 
living. What are, also, the powers and functions of the pro- 
spective living the generations yet unborn 1 Naturally, the 
theory of social compact leads to all sorts of speculations 
as to breaches of contract on the part of the State, and so 
justifies revolution and anarchy. It tends to a condition 
which renders the existence of the State impossible, if not a 
pure fiction. A social compact implies equality amongst the 
individuals forming it, and it is the condition of inequality 
that necessitates the existence of the State. That all men 
are born equal, as declared in the American Constitution, has 
no practical import unless they remain equal after they are 
born ; and if all remain equal, socially and politically, who is 
to rule, and who are to be the ruled ? By driving this theory 
to its logical conclusion, the masses have a grand opportunity 
for asserting their equality, and of overthrowing all despotic 
and theocratic oligarchies. The history of France during the 
past century amply proves that the abstract conception of 
" liberty, equality, and fraternity " is a failure, and produces 
the direct reverse of the results intended. The French Revo- 
lution is the source of the armed despotisms in Europe at the 
present day. Is that liberty ? Is it equality ? Is it fraternity ? 
Is the American nation, whose Constitution is founded on the 
same basis, a model of anything that is conducive to the well- 
being of humanity ? 


The illusion that no State can arise without the mediation 
of some prophetic spirit, such as Moses or Mahomet demi- 
gods who descend with missions and titles from heaven is 
naturally courted by aristocracies, for they are aids to oppres- 
sion and the development of absolute sovereignty. In de- 
mocracies, the same illusion illustrates how it is possible for a 
political function to remain for a time after the structure is 
gone ; for the reverential awe which the State inspires 
the belief in the supernatural powers inherent in the objects 
remains after the crown, the wig, and the woolsack are 

In other theorisings, the speculation is rife that the State 
had its genesis in the social impulses inherent in human 
nature ; in man's political consciousness in the theory that 
man is a political animal. This is a direct thrust against 
the theory that man is naturally a war animal, and requires 
the State to maintain peace, to protect his liberty and his 
property, and to give him security in the pursuit of his happi- 
ness. In this case, the State must, one would think, be in- 
directly a divine institution, for God must have implanted 
these politico-social "instincts" in our nature. The argument 
is weak from the fact that, like religion, the instinct is not 
universal in man ; for there are individuals and political 
parties whose instinct it is to overthrow the State, no odds 
what is to reign in its stead. It quashes the widespread 
theory that the State is a necessary evil, and it makes it a 
necessary good. It can only lead to the same conclusion as 
the theocratic theory, namely, the " realisation of God's king- 
dom upon earth." All instincts must be universal in human 
nature ; otherwise the attribute must have originated in an 
artificial manner must have been perpetuated by habit, and 
is therefore not instinctive. 

The solution of these theories, however, would be of little 
or no avail, for there are numerous other theories with refer- 
ence to the end of the State, which do not necessarily bear 
any relation to its origin j and there are, moreover, theorists 
who maintain that the State has no end at all, but is only a 
means through which individuals can attain their ends. The 
ancient theory, which destroyed all individualism, was carried 


out as if the State only had an end, to which the individual 
contributed his part. Everything was sacrificed to the wel- 
fare of the State. In modern methods of speculative thinking 
the State is merely the means through which the welfare and 
happiness of the individual can be most efficiently secured 
at least, the welfare and happiness of the greatest number. 
The weakness of this theory is, that the champions of this 
philosophy have not pointed out what the end of the indi- 
vidual is which the State is called upon to forward ; neither 
have they been able to define the meaning of welfare and 
happiness. In the absence of these definitions, it is impos- 
sible to define what the State is, and the whole fabric becomes 
a myth. If the people form the State, then all must help 
each, although each may be at liberty to wage war against 
all Is the Deity the source of sovereignty, then He is 
invoked to help each, although each may enjoy the liberty of 
defying the divine authority. Any State that can exist under 
the pressure of such an outrageous dualism must be more than 

Following the philosophers of the German illumination, 
we find the theory prevailing, which has also gained a firm 
footing among Individualists in England, that the true func- 
tions of the State are restricted to the assurance of indi- 
vidual rights ; and Kant expressly rejected the theory of the 
welfare or happiness of the individual. Fichte expresses the 
same views, and Humboldt restricts the State sovereignty 
to " the maintenance of security against both external enemies 
and internal dissensions." Mill regards government action as 
being less effective than voluntary action, each person being 
the best judge of his own interests; but he would permit the 
State to interfere, for example, when the consumer cannot be 
capable of judging the quality of goods, and would allow the 
State to educate children and even adults, and regulate the 
hours of labour. His rule of State non-interference has so 
many important exceptions that it may be regarded as a vague 
theory of public expediency. Herbert Spencer, who regards 
the State as an aggressor, not a protector, when it goes 
beyond the protection of life, liberty, and property, proclaims 
every citizen as having equal rights to pursue his happiness 


and enjoy the fullest exercise of all his functions, limited 
only by recognition of the same rights in others. Humboldu' 
excludes education, religion, and morals from the supervision 
of the State. Hegel, agreeing with Plato, contends that the 
function of the State is morality, and the realisation of the 
moral law. What is morality 1 Whence arises the moral 
law ? The public welfare, according to the Romans, was the 
real end of the State. One of the latest theories is the develop- 
ment of national capacities and a national spirit in directions 
consistent with human destiny. What is the destiny of our 
race ? Austin finds it convenient to regard the State as being 
moulded by the will of a dominant body. 

An important principle in relation to the State is the 
franchise. Is it a right belonging to the subject, or a privilege 
granted by the sovereign? It is evident, in view of the con- 
fusion of theories just enumerated, that this question cannot 
be answered through any abstract medium. Who is in 
actuality the sovereign ? To say that the king is sovereign 
does not make him so, unless it can be shown that there 
are no powers behind the throne. History proves that the 
owners of the land are the sovereigns of the earth, and if 
humanity owns the land, it is also the supreme sovereign, 
whether we recognise the fact or not. When we once re- 
cognise and act upon the fact that humanity 1 is the supreme 
ruler, the social problem will be solved; and the source of 
the whole social struggle reposes in our coronation of false 
sovereigns. Unless we stop posterity, we may as well give 
up the struggle ; for, especially when ancestor-worship is dis- 
solved, we cannot force it to discharge our obligations when 
we leave behind neither the raw material nor the strength to 
appropriate it even for its own subsistence. The weaker we 
leave posterity, the greater grows its sovereign strength, and 
the more peremptorily we shall be called upon to render an 
account of our stewardship. The owner of the land is the 
owner of the crown the absolute owner, who reigns and 

1 There is a sharp line of demarcation between the humanity of the past 
and that of the future, which will be drawn in a later chapter. In the 
sense here indicated posterity plays the most active part, and we may 
regard ourselves as the posterity of our ancestors. 


governs, and from whom we derive and enjoy the franchise. 
Jovism and Jahvism, as well as those other so-called sove- 
reigns, reason and justice, must relinquish their sovereignty, 
and the nation, even though it be guarded by its language, 
its laws, its literature, its religion, its ranks, and inherited 
sympathies, must become the footstool of the absolute. 

This scientific fact is supported by the history of three 
thousand years ; and the constant swerving from Jovism to 
Jahvism, from monarchy to democracy, and vice versd, proves 
the hopelessness of the struggle. The most ancient form of 
government was the theocracy, the rule of priests who, if not 
always Gods themselves, derived their sovereignty more or 
less directly from the God or the Gods. In ancient Egypt 
the original rule was directly from the Gods, and in later times 
the kings, though human, were descendants of the Gods, their 
authority being circumscribed by the divine law. In the 
Jewish theocracy, under the Mosaic dispensation, Jahveh him- 
self was king legislator and ruler to whom all the soil of 
the promised land belonged, the various families being mere 
tenants who had to pay rent in the form of a tenth of the 
produce of the land and flocks for the maintenance of the 
priests. This form of tenancy tended to social equality, no 
Jew being a slave, and in the year of jubilee a fresh division 
of the soil was made amongst the tenants not amongst the 
king's elect, as in mediaeval and modern times after the 
jubilations on war's bloody fields. But this form of sove- 
reignty, in all ancient States, failed ; and even the Jews de- 
manded a human king in order that they might be like other 
nations, divine rule having proved to be a miscarriage of 
justice. The deities themselves, which the nations created 
in their own image, failed to recognise the legitimate sove- 
reign of our earth. Then came the transition to the mixed 
State, a confusion of theocracy and monarchy, whose days are 
also numbered, and to-day monarchies and democracies, as 
well as all other forms of human government, are crumbling 
to the dust. The fallacy that virtue can be created out of 
two or more forms of vice has not yet been cognised. The 
French Revolution, which I regard as the highest type of all 
history, is the strongest proof of the fact that we have not 


yet recognised the true sovereign of our earth, despite the 
abstract conceptions of the Rights of Man which gave it birth. 
Moreover, the lord paramount of the soil, who sways the 
political sceptre, must also wear the sacerdotal stole. The 
virtual collapse of feudalism, which weakened the positive 
powers of the lords and gave inception to the armed despot- 
isms of the present day, has fixed no proneness towards the 
cause of humanity; indeed, the reverse being the case, the 
only legitimate conclusion is, that the development of abstract 
methods is the most disastrous of all human failures. 

But my remarks have been essentially confined to the 
historic State. It takes many years for facts to become 
matters of general history, so that the economic State still 
remains, for the most part, incidents of current literature 
and observation. In drawing a faithful picture of the eco- 
nomic State, it is not necessary that the artist should confine 
his sketches to any existing form of government, for all poli- 
tical institutions in civilised countries belong to the same 
breed, despite the numerous varieties of aristocracy, demo- 
cracy, and theocracy. Feudalism has developed in politicism 
politico-economicism and the statesman has evolved into 
the politician. 

The politician has virtually ceased to coerce his victims for 
their spiritual good, and has confined his energies, his ambi- 
tion, his patriotism, his brilliant abilities, his modest refine- 
ment, and his religious sentiments to their coercion for their 
material or economic good. Barring the author, the critic, 
and the journalist, the politician is the only man who requires 
no learning. Politicism belongs to the " innate moral sense." 
Like the poet, the politician is born, not made. This is the 
reason why there is no ultimate dualism in politics ; for all 
politicians are unanimous in the conviction that they consti- 
tute the State, that society should work for the State's wel- 
fare, and that they have "vested rights" of a social and 
political character both for themselves and their " heirs and 
assigns for ever." It is of no special consequence whether they 
own the soil itself or its products, including the labourers, for 
the land is of no use save for its products, and both forms of 
holding i.e., the land and its products are now accompanied 


by equal increments of respectability. In this manner, the 
dualism of land and capital has been solved also the dualism 
of Church and State and the rights of the persons in this 
trinity are equally inalienable, their rights to rank and to 
happiness, as well as their material rights. They enjoy im- 
plicit faith in the theory that nature is governed by their 
laws that our knowledge of the Absolute is embodied in 
their statutory enactments. They are divine by sentiment, 
behaviour, privilege, and power, if not also by pedigree and 
descent. They create wealth in a respectable manner, by 
consuming the products of labour, thereby making commo- 
dities scarce and dear, and furnishing employment for the 
" proletariat." In aristocracies, their generosity is exercised 
by working without wages, merely demanding in return in- 
creased rents, profits, and briefs ; in democracies, monopoly 
and wages are the cost of legislation. There appears to be a 
trifling dualism here, but it would be uncharitable to dwell 
on trifles so long as there is so much unity and harmony 
of thought in the grand doctrines and ethics of politics. 
Besides, all minor appearances of inconsistency are bridged 
over by private donations to charitable institutions, and by 
a free-handed circulation of money during election campaigns, 
when the sympathies of our politicians for the masses are 
most keenly aroused, and when pledges are most rife pro- 
mises of law for the poor and justice for the rich. Pledges 
for the extension of the franchise is a common form of gene- 
rosity bestowed in return for election or re-election. 

The economic State is divided into two departments extra- 
ordinary, namely : (i) The Society for the Production of 
Wealth (without labour), and (2) The National League for 
the Protection of Property. These, as well as all the sub- 
departments, are run by syndicates, rings, " bosses," cau- 
cuses, conventions, &c. It is an imperative duty of the 
functionaries to see that hereditary sinecures are created or 
augmented for the purpose of furnishing respectable em- 
ployment for needy partisans who have no visible means 
of subsistence. Should malcontents arise in any quarter, 
especially amongst those who enjoy the franchise, or should 
a depression in trade ensue in sympathy with the malignant 


spots on the sun, a Royal Commission is appointed to inves- 
tigate the cause, which creates respectable employment for 
men of birth, education, and refinement, and then the evi- 
dence is most circumspectly shelved to receive the most 
prayerful attention of the party after the next election. 
When the theories of our political economists are threatened 
with discredit or extinction, due to trade depression, a Royal 
Commission is in demand for the purpose of gathering more 
statistics in order that our economic thinkers may subdivide 
their subject, it being much too broad for the wits of any 
one man in a single lifetime. Should there be an agricultural 
crisis, then our live-stock speculators, who are organised to 
represent the whole farming community, are examined to 
show cause, and in the evidence it appears that more pedi- 
greed stock is wanted to maintain the fertility of the soil, 
that the pedigrees must be purer and less spurious in order 
to make them scarce and thus enhance prices, that State 
funds are required to examine the herd-books, and, in order 
to prevent a collapse in prices, the reports of the prevalence 
of contagious diseases amongst blooded stock must be sup- 
pressed. Then arises an alarm lest people should catch tra- 
china, tuberculosis, or other contagious diseases which infest 
domestic animals ; and then more doctors and inspectors are 
required to diminish the high death-rate due to over-population, 
and to prevent food adulterations, which have been increased 
for the good of trade. Another Commission is in request to 
inquire into the labour grievances to devise ways and means 
to enhance wages and shorten the hours of labour without in- 
terfering with the interests of the capitalists ; but the agricul- 
tural labourers and tenants, being unorganised, or their votes 
being secure or non-existent, fail to give employment to poli- 
ticians in the Royal Commission line of business ; they are 
therefore non-producers, because they do not encourage litera- 
ture or trade ; and for the reason that they keep " scrub " 
stock they also fail to encourage veterinary science. They 
take no part in the restoration of business confidence, with- 
out which trade languishes and wealth becomes demoralised. 
Should destitution become so great, owing to the mass of un- 
employed labourers, that the State becomes endangered by the 


spread of Socialism, then the surplus wages must be forced 
into the State treasury to provide against old age or infir- 
mity, thus compelling the malcontents to become partners in 
the public business, which coerces them to patriotism and 
strengthens the " powers that be," for the overthrow of the 
State would then involve the ruin of the lower as well as the 
upper classes. This sagacious stratagem has the effect of 
quelling Socialism by the adoption of the Socialistic principle, 
just as landlordism is abolished by increasing the number 
of landlords. Political events naturally become a respectable 
topic of conversation amongst the learned, who, although 
they may not have political aspirations themselves, cannot 
retain social respect without adopting a political cause. There 
must be a struggle against innovations in our universities 
and ecclesiastical institutions ; for changes herein would be 
an acknowledgment of their imperfections, and would lead 
to the insinuation that Conservatism has a Reform aspect. 
Then, again, who has the brazen effrontery to deny that 
"vested rights" exist in literary, economic, philosophic, and 
theologic professorships, as well as in those departments of 
human affairs which minister to our material well-being 1 The 
title-deeds thereto are surely as sacred and inviolable as land 
tenures, or bonds and mortgages. If the theories of Adam 
Smith, Henry Carey, Malthus, the Church fathers, or those of 
the philosophers were extinguished, the " counsel for creeds " 
(as Professor Huxley puts it) would lose their means of 
subsistence just on the same principle as landlords or bond- 
holders. If biology instead of chemistry were made the basis 
of dietetics, the occupation of our doctors would be gone, 
for the legitimate conclusion would be that drug-shops are a 
humbug. If wealth were based on plenty instead of scarcity, 
our lawyers would have to take angels' wings and fly, followed 
by our whole army of politicians fly to the regions whence 
the land titles have been obtained. It would be a social and 
political crime to insist that the future demands a portion 
of our attention, for there are so many venerable ideas and 
institutions in the past which claim our undivided energies. 
Besides, a peep into the future would stimulate a proneness 
in the cause of humanity, and ruthlessly drag us out of the 


rut of conventionality. If our landlords, pursuant to their 
feudal contract, still did the fighting, a dreadful calamity 
might accrue, there being nobody to own the land or con- 
sume the luxuries obtained therefrom, and then there might 
be no title-deeds for lawyers to trace, so that two respectable 
sources of employment would be gone, and then there might 
not be sufficient wit or forensic eloquence to defend our 
tithes. All forces which tend to weaken human desire are 
destructive of wealth ; and as the incentive to crime becomes 
proportionately weak, economists and lawyers are brethren 
in the most significant sense of the word ; the clergy belong 
to the same fraternity, and all their interests are bound up 
with those of the State. A strong government becomes a 
legal, as well as a clerical and a political, necessity. When the 
regal authority becomes weak, whether through upheavals 
due to widespread distress and popular discontent or through 
licentiousness in the higher ranks, the State is strengthened 
by clamours and declarations of war. The demand for fortifi- 
cations and other public works gives employment, is expected 
to awaken patriotic feelings, and to restore contentment and 
business confidence. It is easier and more pleasant to wage 
war than to fight, and a policy which tends to divide the 
political power amongst the fighting classes becomes unpopu- 
lar at headquarters, unless an undue prolongation of peace 
tends to desinecure military aspirants. State officials, being 
engaged in respectable employments, become the leaders of 
society, create wealth by encouraging desire and trade, thus 
furnishing employment for the poor and needy, and they 
carry civilisation into localities which would otherwise remain 
in the most degrading state of barbarism. Imitating the 
higher government functionaries, they become leaders of 
Fashionism, and their refined behaviour wins for them that 
degree of respect and adoration due to their social rank and 
political calling. 

There was a time when our sovereign exercised a power 
in State affairs. For example, Edward VI. called the lower 
classes of his subjects " spittle and filth ; " but the sovereign 
of the nineteenth century has lost all power in this respect. 
Perhaps it would be more correct to say that he voluntarily 


resigned such authority, for its continuance would be a biting 
satire on the very civilisation of his own begetting. His 
authority is now limited to his personal influence over the 
ministers of the crown in other words, it is identical with 
that of any subject in the kingdom. The power lost on the 
one hand, however, is gained on the other, leaving the sum- 
total unchanged. His power as master of economic cere- 
monies has vastly increased, and the greater the increase 
the greater the area of land required for the sustenance and 
development of court ceremonies. He is the most potent 
instrument in the quickening of our desires, in the encourage- 
ment of trade, and in the furnishing of employment for his 
starving subjects, not only on his own behalf, but also on 
behalf of all other court dignitaries who confer the same 
blessings under royal auspices. But in ancient times the king 
was also judge, priest, and general, all of which offices were 
divine. The general and the judge have lost their divinity, 
that of the priest is all but gone, leaving the " defender of the 
faith " alone in possession of the divine functions. But he is 
now the high priest of economic rites and solemnities ; there- 
fore economicism is divine the faith of which His Majesty is 

Meanwhile, however, our State functionaries are so busily 
engaged in promoting the cause of civilisation that they have 
no time to devote to the material interests of the people. 
State ships, superintended by State inspectors, sink into the 
sea; State railways run into embankments, houses cave in, 
boilers explode, and human souls are ushered into eternity. 
Their predestinated time has come ; the will of God is done. 
Besides, the country is over-populated, and, the inspectors 
being saved, the Almighty has taken this method of enabling 
the fittest to survive, there being no chance for those born 
and bred in the lower ranks of society. But it is also neces- 
sary that the population should be multiplied and replenished 
in order to increase the wealth of the nation ; for rent would 
otherwise be at a standstill if increased demands were not made 
for access to the means of subsistence ; and as for houses, they 
could not increase in number and swell into huge and flourish- 
ing cities, save by virtue of an augmented population, and our 


manufacturers and traders would have no employment in the 
furnishing of such houses. Therefore, a population having 
intense and manifold desires must be encouraged in order to 
increase rents and enliven business. People must therefore 
be used as machines for the augmentation of national wealth, 
just as our children, under the Education Act, are converted 
into machines for rewarding teachers according to results. 
The government method of increasing the population is by 
means of State-supported illegitimate children and foundlings, 
and by threatening bachelors with increased burdens of taxa- 
tion. Another method of remedying over-population is in the 
appointment of delinquent adulteration inspectors, who permit 
the population to be prematurely shuffled off by the sure, 
though slow, process of poisoning. 

Meanwhile, also, private enterprise straddles streams with 
bridges, binds oceans together with belts of thought, soul 
speaking to soul across the deep in defiance of time and dis- 
tance, lays railways and telegraphs, almost greases the North 
Pole, expands commerce, Christianises the barbarian and brings 
him under the yoke of civilisation, codifies our laws, gathers 
statistics, sends paupers beyond the seas, establishes charitable 
and educational institutions, founds and maintains hospitals, 
museums, libraries, asylums, &c., exposes adulterators, agitates 
against corn-laws, carries home-rules, conducts exhibitions, 
fat-stock shows, and experiment stations in opposition to 
State machinery. 

This chapter is a brief abstract from my certificate of char- 
acter to the economic State, which I most respectfully dedicate 
to Socialism. This is the State whose powers are to be en- 
larged so as to control every sphere of human activity. It is 
not surprising that Individualism rises indignantly to revolt 
against such an organisation, and that Georgism shrinks from 
the idea of going past the half-way house. If the Socialistic 
plan, namely, the more rapid development of economicism, 
is effectually carried out, the return to Individualism will be 
sharp and through no circuitous route. Equally futile is it to 
hope for relief through continuance of Individualistic rule, or 
any modifications of its forms, and therefore no compromise 
between the two evils can be of any avail. So long as we 


confine our operations within the abstract category, and 
remain blind as to the existence of ulterior dualisms, the 
Socialistico-Individualistic phase of sociology will not enable 
us to advance one step towards the solution of the social 

A brief analysis of Socialism and Georgism in their relation 
to the State is here in order. The Georgic school begin and 
end their present programme with land nationalisation. The 
Socialists are also in favour of nationalising the land, but 
their method of appropriation is different. Henry George 
taxes the land to its full value, and deposits the money in the 
public exchequer, while the Socialists issue a decree declaring 
the land to be public property. The only difference between 
the two programmes is, that the former is evolutionary and 
the latter revolutionary, so that the Georgic method is more 
scientific. In both cases the land passes into the hands of the 
State, and the rent must, theoretically at least, accrue for the 
benefit of the people. In the ulterior effect there is, therefore, 
no dualism between Henry George and the Socialists. The 
latter, however, do not stop short at land nationalisation, 
holding that this half-hearted Socialism will have little or no 
effect in ameliorating the condition of the masses. This is 
quite natural ; for it is the tendency of all parties to confine 
their gaze to immediate results. The Socialists, for example, 
finding that they prosper under conditions which make labour 
plentiful and wages high, regard the nationalisation of capital 
to be the basis of prosperity. Agricultural labourers and 
tenants, finding that high rents are a bar to their progress, 
naturally sympathise with any movement tending to free the 
land from oppressive burdens and making it accessible. Their 
idea of prosperity is to have land cheap and its produce dear, 
while the Socialistic idea is to have agricultural products cheap 
and free access to capital. Some independent theorists, who 
do not derive their subsistence directly from land or manual 
labour, contend that high prices all round are conducive to 
prosperity, while others base it upon the cheapness of all com- 
modities. In Georgic philosophy, we hear that if we own the 
cow we also own the milk, which seems to solve the Georgo- 
Socialistic dualism, Henry George having become an extreme 



Socialist. The failure to recognise the fact that the owner of 
the land also owns its products arises from the lack of aptitude 
to draw a distinction between the products already taken from 
the land and those taken after the land becomes nationalised. 
A very large percentage of commodities is more or less 
perishable, and require to be replaced by fresh draughts upon 
land, so that the question to be decided is the rights of the 
individual to labour upon State-owned lands for the purpose 
of appropriating the products for his own use and that of his 
" heirs and assigns for ever." Food, clothing, and houses 
being perishable commodities, the State must eventually have 
complete control over the individual, and may even prevent 
him from building houses or erecting machinery on land. It 
is idle to seek any ultimate difference between Georgism and 
Socialism; and we are therefore confronted with two con- 
ditions, namely, (i) Evolutionary Socialism, and (2) Revolu- 
tionary Socialism. The revolutionary party is damaging its 
own cause by attempting to get all it can as fast as it gains 
strength to procure it, while under the evolutionary system 
future results are to some extent matters of reason and cal- 
culation, not of prejudice and passion. There are many well- 
meaning people who would join the Socialistic movement if 
they could foreshadow the results of their actions, but so long 
as the means of subsistence remain precarious, they will 
retain grasp of their property until it is forced out of their 
hands. The question is not who is entitled to the property, 
or who has the greatest power to .acquire and retain it ; for 
even if the propertied classes suddenly released their titles, 
it would be unwise on the part of the revolutionists to attempt 
peremptory possession. All safe institutions must grow. To 
dethrone a king and elect a president in his stead does not make 
a republic. We must grow from bad to better, as well as from 
good to worse. The real dualism in Evolutio-Revolutionary 
Socialism is whether the process of reform should begin by 
nationalising (i) land, or (2) capital; but as I am not work- 
ing in the abstract category, I do not feel disposed to give 
advice on this question. All I can say is, that all scien- 
tific methods are evolutionary, and if the nationalisation of 
capital can be accomplished by evolutionary processes, that is 


not a matter for me to discuss. "With reference to the relation 
between Socialism and Individualism, it is an inconsistent 
coincidence that the father of Evolutionary Socialism, Herbert 
Spencer, is the champion of Individualism. In his work on 
" Social Statics " Mr. Spencer advocates land nationalisation, 
and he does not appear to have predicted the extreme Social- 
istic consequences of his own doctrines. None of the Socialist 
philosophers appear to have discovered the absurdity of their 
theory that every man can be entitled to the products of his 
labour. In the first place, no man can get the whole produce 
of his labour so long as there are politicians, lawyers, doctors, 
economists, philosophers, priests, speculators, weaklings, and 
other non-producers to be supported from the toil of the 
labourers. It is the rapid increase of the non-producing 
classes, especially of officialism, that is the cause of nearly all 
our woes people who procure respectable employment and 
draw on large areas of land for the purpose of maintaining 
useless ranks and ceremonies. Secondly, the theory leads to 
the presumption that every individual has the right to labour 
and accumulate, for himself and his "heirs and assigns for 
ever," all that he is able to produce over his current neces- 
sities that is to say, he is permitted not only to work his 
own plot of land (or receive an equivalent), but also to waste 
or hoard the substance of some other person or persons. The 
hoarding of valuables is one of the greatest evils in our social 
system, and so long as the practice exists an unequal distri- 
bution will be the inevitable result so long as there exist 
designing men. Besides, if everybody received the full pro- 
duce of his toil, there would be no use in attempting to re- 
strict the hours of labour. People would be more apt to 
work sixteen hours a day than eight, as many business men 
do now, and then the quantity of commodities hoarded would 
be proportionately increased. The monopoly of land products 
is just as iniquitous as the monopoly of the land itself in- 
deed, the product is a portion of the land and the greater 
the quantity removed the less the quantity in reserve. The 
theory that everybody has unlimited right to labour must be 
abandoned, for it implies a corresponding right to monopolise, 
to waste, to hoard, or to destroy. Not only so, but it also 


confers a right to the individual to bequeath a life of idleness 
to his heirs, and our social condition would then be the same 
as it is now. An equal right to the land must carry an equal 
right to its products. By what process of alchemy can rights 
be maintained under a system in which the poor man's fran- 
chise has the same political power as that of the property 
owner ? Equality of property can only be kept separate from 
equality of voting power so long as the cunning of the privi- 
leged classes can be exercised in keeping the masses ignorant 
of their rights, or in creating splits in their ranks. And yet, 
if the incentive to accumulate property be taken away, the 
main stimulus to labour, in economic men, would be greatly 
weakened, if not wholly suppressed; and it would be un- 
natural to entertain the hope that the State, through its 
officials, could create a wholesome impulse in the individual. 
Socialism can only enhance wages by making commodities 
scarce, and for this purpose there must be, as under our 
present regime, a great number of small men with great de- 
sires not of great men with no desires, which is required 
for the maximum of scientific wealth so that instead of 
having five or six millions of big gluttons, as at present, 
everybody must become a little glutton in order to furnish 
abundance of labour and high wages. This principle is paral- 
leled by the abolition of big landlordism through the creation 
of numerous little landlords. With all its defects, Socialism 
will have this advantage, namely, that its leaders, should 
they get into power, will use their utmost endeavours to 
make their system work smoothly; the evils may not be 
seriously felt until their successors in office commence to turn 
society into a machine for their own aggrandisement. Under 
the same conditions history will always repeat itself. I refer 
to Evolutionary Socialism, although a desperate extreme of 
Individualism will be required to force Socialistic ideas upon 
the Teutonic character. The Socialism of ancient nations 
did not preserve them from extinction, and the same powers 
of objectivity will cause the dismemberment of all modern 

I need not dwell on the fact that the same economic con- 
ditions prevail in every civilised country, for such has not 


been disputed ; and with reference to the effect of economic 
theories upon the minds of our rulers, I have made the subject 
plain in my chapter on political economy. That the modern 
State is an economic institution is beyond all question. 
Efforts have also been made to help the cause of agriculture, 
but, as I have shown, this is also completely under economic 
control. Our Minister or Board of Agriculture cannot help 
the cause, but may aid in leading our agricultural interests to 
destruction. There is no use in wasting time to discuss the 
relative merits of Liberalism or Radicalism and Conserva- 
tism, or to enlarge upon such commercial strifes as Free-trade, 
Fair-trade, and Protection, or upon bounty-fed commodities. 
If commerce itself, as the basis of national prosperity, has 
proved a failure, it makes little difference whether trade be 
free, fair, or protected. Our Liberals and Radicals do not 
promise us any reforms which have not been a failure in 
other countries, notably France and America. Constitutional 
monarchies, despotisms, oligarchies, and democracies have all 
failed ; and in political history there is nothing better known 
than the constant tendency to swerve from one extreme to 
another. In structure the political State of modern history 
is a mixture of the Graeco-Roman and the Teutonic, but the 
functions are so inconsistent with these ideals that disso- 
lution, sooner or later, is inevitable. Just as with the animal 
body, the State structure cannot long remain when the 
function is gone ; and the same law applies to professional 
life. When the State has no faith to be defended, the king 
cannot remain defender of the faith except as an abstract 
idea ; and even the priestly stole emaciates into a rag. When 
no disease is there the doctor is nowhere. When divine 
rights and titles vanish, and when wealth ceases to be based 
on scarcity, the lawyer's occupation is gone. 

In principle there is nothing in the structure of the modern 
State which has not been pointed out by Aristotle ; and his 
" Polities " has braved two thousand years the battle and the 
breeze. He makes the following classification : i. The good 
government of one person, Monarchy, when demoralised, forms 
a Tyranny (Despotism). 2. The good government of a few 
persons, Aristocracy, when perverted, forms an Oligarchy. 3. 


The good government in the hands of many persons, Com- 
monwealth, when depraved, forms a Democracy. These divi- 
sions, modified by economic forces, hold good at the present 
day, and the " Polities " of this great scientist and philosopher 
has swayed the minds of political thinkers in mediaeval and 
modern times. Now, Aristotle was a heathen, and the ques- 
tion arises, How could the divine institutions of the Middle 
Ages emanate from the brain of a heathen philosopher? If 
it be denied that Aristotle was a heathen, two proofs, I think, 
will be sufficient to settle the question, namely, (i) he was a 
believer in false Gods, and (2) he denounced economicism. 

As a system of education, the vicious tendency of poli- 
ticism cannot be too firmly fixed upon our minds. It per- 
meates the press, the club, and all social organisations to such 
an extent as renders scientific inquiry very dilatory ; it tends 
to deaden the spirit of truth, and to arouse our most ignoble 
passions ; it sharpens our appetites for sensations and poli- 
tical scandals, blunts our moral feelings as to the squalor and 
destitution which constantly rage all around us, and demo- 
ralises our whole character. The youth, having completed 
his education in the State school, now becomes a pupil of the 
editor who is likely to be a tool of the party, and whose live- 
lihood depends upon the amount of poisoned breath which he 
can exhale into the languishing body-politic. 

I have no sympathy with those speculative thinkers who 
maintain that the State, like all organic structures, is naturally 
doomed to decay. Nations, it is true, will continue to fall 
so long as the germs of decay continue to gnaw the vitals of 
civilised races ; but let the wheel of fortune be once turned 
the other way, let every generation excel the strength and 
virtues of its predecessor, let the rule of the true sovereign 
be once recognised, let " liberty, equality, and fraternity," in 
their true meaning, prevail, and the national life be as im- 
perishable as humanity itself, constantly gaining in vitality, 
instead of becoming tainted with decay and sinking into utter 

The universally prevailing superstition that the State can 
do something has its origin in its supposed divinity. It is 
the great antiquity of the institution which leads us to believe 


that it enjoys superhuman powers; and ifc is even still the 
universal belief that the State can solve the social problem. 
The people build the nation, and the State is the author of its 
destruction. The State is a consumer and waster of commo- 
dities, not a producer and sparer. During the whole rule of 
economicism the State has been attempting to build up trade, 
and this is the source of those commercial crises for which 
economic thinkers have blamed the spots on the sun. It has 
also attempted to build up agriculture, but similar results 
cannot be escaped. Our religion is a sad commentary on the 
theory that our inner consciousness can be moulded and de- 
veloped by State authority. Granted that trade is a good 
thing, and that the State has at times been the instrument of 
its enquickenment, then what do we find? Who has not 
heard of complaints of trade depressions in many branches 
due to elections and political campaigns? Many business 
men are waiting to see which party will enjoy the reins of 
power, or what will turn up after the elections. One party 
pledges itself to rob one branch of business or industry by 
taxation, and the other party promises to rob other branches, 
and it is necessary for the business man to know whether 
he will belong to the robbers or the robbed. So it is with 
wages : one party agrees to rob the capitalist in order that 
the labourer may receive justice ; another party reverses this 
order; and the independents pledge themselves to make 
everybody prosperous without robbing anybody. This is the 
political method of encouraging trade ; and it must be the 
only legitimate scheme, because the State is a divine insti- 
tution, and therefore cannot err. If the ruler monopolises 
all the divine attributes, then witness the business sensation, 
especially on 'Change, when he delivers a public speech or 
issues a political decree. It is significant that a lottery cor- 
poration operates on political principles, and yet some of us 
can see that it can only influence the distribution of wealth 
and check its production. In a similar manner, the State 
can only tax one portion of the community and relieve 
another portion, which, however, can only produce the 
desired effect until the equilibrium of economic forces is 
restored. So long as this power remains there can exist 


no such thing as " vested right " in property, for the State 
can arrange the methods of taxation in such a way that com- 
modities are equally distributed in sympathy with the voting 
power of the people, should the franchise receive the widest 
extension. If political " might is right," then equal voting 
power carries an equal share in the commodities within the 
control of the State. Our social troubles are caused largely 
by the ignorance of this power which prevails amongst the 
masses. However unjust this form of right may appear, it is 
not inconsistent in its practical effects with any law in nature. 
The State has also temporary power to grant monopolies, 
which result in the pauperisation of the masses, and it can 
tax the monopolists up to the full value of their monopoly 
that is, the function of the economic State is to grant and 
destroy monopolies; and its administration of justice consists 
in the punishment of individuals who, impelled by necessity 
or other economic forces, attempt to weaken or destroy 
monopoly. Herein resides also the power of the State ; the 
greater the monopolies granted, the greater its power, for it 
can control the monopolists by pledging the continuance of 
the monopoly, and can control the anti-monopolists through 
pledges for its destruction. In the ultimate analysis, there 
can therefore only be two political parties, namely, (i) the 
defenders of monopoly (political objectivity), and (2) the 
monopoly destructionists (political subjectivity) ; and to this 
source may be traced the duplicity of our politicians. Even 
as a matter of mere economic justice, it has not been ex- 
plained why those who make the monopolies valuable should 
be deprived of the benefits. The indirect scheme of taxa- 
tion is one of the most potent instruments in the mainten- 
ance of monopoly. The indirect form induces us to believe 
that we pay no taxes unless we feel the hand of the tax- 
gatherer sink into our pockets, while in reality the more 
indirect the taxation the greater is the sum we have to pay 
and the less we think we pay. If all middlemen engaged 
in the collection of our taxes were abolished monopoly would 
lose its props, and great would be the fall thereof. The 
State, as a lottery corporation, is the prince of humbugs 
on the ground that every citizen is compelled to support it, 


although, unless he enjoys the franchise, he has no voice in 
its destruction. When the winner receives his prize, he is 
not secure until its value is restored by taxation ; but so long 
as he is able to retain it, he has a title-deed to larger areas of 
land wherethrough he may maintain himself in the criminal 
condition of unbridled licentiousness and gluttony, enabling 
him to dispense with the exercise of his natural functions, 
to weaken the functions of the holders of unlucky tickets 
through overstraining labour, to demoralise his associates 
by their aping his desires, and to bequeath to posterity, his 
impaired structures and functions. All this, however, is 
good for trade, and that settles the matter, for by increasing 
the totality of desire wealth is increased in substantially the 
same ratio. 

The abstract character of the State is now made plain from 
various standpoints, and all hope of attaining unity of thought 
and harmony of feeling through political methods may now 
be abandoned. The State is an economic institution, and our 
dualism therefore remains unchanged, namely, science versus 
economicism (scio-subjectivity and economico-objectivity). 



IT will have been observed that I scrupulously evaded all 
allusion to money as a factor in connection with my inquiry ; 
for had I done so I would have committed the tragic outrage 
of insinuating that it had something to do with the solution 
of the social problem. However, as the gold superstition is 
so firmly rooted in the economic mind, and as standards of 
value play an important part in my inquiry, I have found 
it necessary to devote a special chapter to the subject. As 
already stated, our economic thinkers strive to found our 
monetary matters on the soundest principles of political 
economy ; and as these principles are fundamentally false, it 
is evident that their efforts will be barren of practical results. 
We have seen that the basis of economic wealth is an abstract 
conception and it makes no difference whether it is called 
desire, scarcity, or happiness and as wealth is measured by 
money, therefore money must be the measure of scarcity (if 
such can be measured), not of abundance. When commodities 
are so abundant that they bring no money, there is no econo- 
mic standard for their measurement. To use a concrete object 
to measure an abstraction is a dualism which will solve itself 
without much ceremony. What is the ratio between an ounce 
of gold and a metaphysical idea? Describe the nature and 
intensity of a desire whose utility equals that of a Bank 
of England note. How many increments of happiness are 
treasured up in a kilogramme of silver 1 How many tons of 
copper are required to balance the amount of scarcity which 

exists in the world? We have been educated to the belief 



that gold will purchase all the objects of our desires for all 
time to come; therefore, with all our getting, we must get 
gold. I should like to know what we shall have to purchase 
gold with when all other commodities are gone. Under the 
unbroken rule of existing economic theories, the time must 
come when there will be gold enough to pave all the streets 
in Christendom, and when there will not be sufficient fertility 
in the soil, or vitality in our domestic plants or animals, to 
support a living soul. Many of us believe that if gold became 
as plentiful as stones everybody would be so rich that nobody 
would be obliged to work for a living ; and those of us who 
have a little more intelligence are of the humble opinion that 
the multiplication of bank-notes, bonds, and mortgages is the 
true method of producing national wealth. Like other articles 
of wealth, gold must be scarce before it can possess economic 
value, and the scarcer it is the more valuable it becomes. 
Plentiful things never become fashionable, never provoke our 
desires, and the economic virtue of an article consists in its 
being scarce. Plentiful things may be made scarce by being 
subjected to a large amount of labour ; hence the theory that 
labour is the true standard of value. One of my objects in 
this chapter is to show that neither money nor labour is the 
true standard of value, that the exact reverse is the case, 
namely, the more money and labour expended upon a com- 
modity the less valuable it becomes ; but as I have, in a 
previous chapter, confined the discussion to food commodities, 
I cannot go beyond this limit here. I shall not here deny 
that there are some commodities which are made more valu- 
able by the expenditure of labour. 

In contrast with the above-expressed conceptions of econo- 
mic wealth, let us here introduce a few leading facts with 
reference to scientific wealth. The basis of our existence is 
food, or, rather, the land from which the food is obtained. 
Our very bodies and souls are also derived from some parcel 
or parcels of laud. Land is therefore the basis of scientific 
wealth ; and no scientist can ever dream of regarding money 
either as a basis of wealth or as a measure of its value. But 
the scientific and the economic idea of land is also very con- 


flictiug. The economist takes the acre as the basis of land, 
while to the scientist land is measured by the few handfuls of 
chemical compounds which the soil releases from year to year, 
producing a crop, and which gives the ground its entire value. 
Although it is hardly conceivable that the last dregs of soil- 
fertility can be drained by the removal of crops, yet every 
pinch removed and not restored tends in this direction, and 
is the primary source of wealth known to the scientist. What 
do gold and bonds and houses avail when the source of sub- 
sistence is gone ? No scientist can conceive of a method of 
creating wealth by making his kilogrammes of chemical com- 
pounds scarce; in other words, they must be a positive 
quantity, not a negation or an abstraction. The sources of 
waste of scientific wealth may mainly be divided into three 
classes: (i) animal excretions (solid and liquid), (2) the 
bodies of animals, and (3) vegetable refuse. The last named 
also includes such so'urces as cast-off clothing, kitchen refuse, 
&c. ; but heavy rains overflooding the land may also be a 
source of waste, although largely unavoidable, but this is 
compensated by floods which sometimes bring fertility from 
otherwise inaccessible quarters. In the state of nature no 
wealth is lost, for the excretions of wild animals are deposited 
on the land, as are also their bodies after death ; so that the 
world is no poorer on account of their having existed. The 
posterity of wild animals has therefore no action for damages 
against their ancestors ; but if the excretions were deposited 
in rivers or lakes, and their dead bodies in caves, the tran- 
sition would then be entitled to the name of "civilisation." 
Now, it is plain that if the excretions and bodies are deposited, 
nothing being wasted, the same number of animals could be 
produced and maintained for ever without drawing a particle 
of fertility out of the soil beyond that removed by the first 
generation. Therefore, if the sewers and graveyards of London 
were forced to deliver up their booty, another London could 
be produced and maintained, leaving the soil from which the 
inhabitants derive their subsistence unchanged in point of 
fertility. In this case, however, the cast-off clothing, kitchen 
waste, paper, framework of houses, &c., must also be restored 


to the soil, or, rather, the ashes of these waste materials. This 
is governed by the law of minimums, which will be explained 
in a later chapter. Now, what is remarkable about the situa- 
tion is this, that our graves and sewers do not contain a 
farthing's worth of economic wealth, because there is nothing 
which appeals to our abstract desires ; indeed, millions of 
economic wealth are being spent in dumping scientific wealth 
into watery caverns beyond all possibility of redemption. If 
we could calculate how many acres of land are being annually 
dumped into the sea, the figures would be alarming, even 
omitting the greater area wasted by the practice of maintain- 
ing domestic animals. It may here be argued that the hog, 
us the prince of scavengers, saves a great deal of rubbish from 
going to waste. All I have to say about this is, that the 
greatest of all scavengers is the animal which eats the hog, 
and yet this system of economy does not prevent waste. 
Should it be argued that the existence of cities makes such 
waste compulsory, then, as we shall see, science does not 
sanction their existence. 

It is necessary in this inquiry to take a brief survey of 
money as the Zeus of our idolatry. Those who imagine that 
the basis of worship in any civilised country is in any other 
form of religion have a false conception of history. The 
deity of every age and nation is the dominant force by which 
they are controlled, the inferior forces being the minor deities. 
As we are now controlled by economic forces, we must seek 
in them the basis of our worship. Christianity (indeed all 
religions) has become a subordinate divinity, which cannot be 
completely eliminated so long as abstract theories hold sway. 
In the economic godhead there are three persons: (i) the 
money-made man, (2) the tailor-made man, and (3) the 
theory-made man. We worship him seven days in the week. 
Being an objective deity, he is not the God of the Jews, but 
corresponds to the God of those ancient heathens, the Greeks. 
He created us in his own image, and for his own glory and 
pleasure. He presides over manufacture and commerce, and 
gives us supernatural power to subdue nature and natural 
laws. In order to expand manufacture and commerce, he 


inspires his elect to Christianise the heathens abroad, and to 
prostitute our sisters and daughters at home. He is the 
measure of all things, human and divine. He is the God- 
king, and his anointed, vicegerents of heaven, reign and 
govern on earth by divine right demigods, Czars of econo- 
micism, each having a civilised nation under his magic and 
majestic sceptre. He gave us dominion over all creeping 
things upon the earth, and made the herbs as meat for all 
creeping creatures. Excommunication, boycotting, and eter- 
nal damnation are the reward of all who make manifestations 
of uneasiness or show signs of disobedience under his Almighty 
sway, while a glorious future a paradise awaits all who 
worship him in spirit and in truth through the encourage- 
ments of trade. 

Those who "bemuddle the various schools of currency 
quacks" 1 are the only disciples of the orthodox school of 
political economy who are now making their voices heard. 
The neAV scheme to improve agriculture in particular, as well 
as business generally, is bimetallism, and the subject has 
already been discussed in the House of Commons, but with 
ill success. Gold sways the individual to-day as much as it 
swayed the nation during the rule of Mercantilism. Money 
must stand or fall with the rest of the economic fabric ; it is 
subject to the same laws, and leads to similar divergences of 
thought and embitterments of feeling. In these days of the 
minute divisions of labour, it is somewhat surprising that 
money still continues to perform so many functions. Besides 
being the standard of the man, it is used as a measure of 
value through which different commodities may be compared ; 
it is used for facilitating exchange caused by the division of 
labour, for estimating future contracts or obligations, and for 
hoarding up values. The qualities to be possessed by a com- 
modity which is to serve as money are said to be as follows : 
(i) it must possess a distinct utility apart from its use as 
money; (2) it must be divisible; (3) homogeneous (like in 
kind) ; (4) cognisable ; (5) portable. That gold and silver 

1 This high compliment to our currency philosophers has been recently 
paid by an editorial writer in the Daily Telegraph (Feb. 9, 1889). 


possess these qualities in a higher degree than other com- 
modities the scientist does not trouble himself to deny. As 
a medium of exchange, the function of money is to encourage 
trade, and this brings us back to the economic issue discussed 
in previous chapters. Why should we immolate ourselves on 
the altar of trade? Again, money is the measure of value. 
What is value ? Economists have not been able to agree 
upon a definition of value or utility even in their own cate- 
gory. There is first value in use, and secondly exchange 
value, between which no effort seems to have been made to 
establish any ratio. Value is sometimes confused with the 
cost of production, and this cost is again conceived from two 
standpoints : (i) the cost measured in labour, and (2) the 
cost measured in money. Then we have absolute and in- 
trinsic values, which are just as abstract as the other con- 
ceptions, and are therefore not susceptible of definition. In 
order to possess value, it is said that a commodity must 
subserve some human desire, and therefore must have utility 
or usefulness. What is the measure of human desire ? Unless 
this question can be answered, and unless some ratio can 
be established between our desires and our destiny, all the 
theories of value must fall to the ground. Smith, Eicardo, 
and Marx base value upon the quantity of social labour ex- 
pended, while Jevons, Wicksteed, and their school take the 
law of supply and demand as the basis, and this is supposed 
to be regulated by utility. Mill thought that labour was not 
always the entire source of value. The fallacy of labour being 
the standard of value is strikingly illustrated by the products 
of agriculture. Heavy crops do not require much more labour 
than light yields, and yet when the harvests are generally 
abundant the prices fall so low that an agricultural panic may 
result. The fact that an abundance of the necessities of life 
can pauperise any portion of the community should in itself 
be sufficient to upset all the theories of political economy, 
and proves the fallacy of scarcity as a factor in the production 
of wealth. It is sometimes urged as a condition of value that 
the commodities must be freely produced, the cost of produc- 
tion then being, in the long-run, the measure of value, but 


this condition can never be attained so long as all the land is 
monopolised. The theory that labour is the standard of value 
leads to the conclusion that the labourer gets the total produce 
of his labour, just as the rich man now gets all the produce 
and benefits which his money can command. This will give 
rise to an aristocracy of labour, which can never hold sway 
until all existing theories of education are revolutionised, and 
our rulers themselves must be labourers. Unless men can be 
found who are willing to labour and rule at the same time 
the theory is impracticable, for no man will want to disgrace 
himself by ruling so long as the aristocracy are all engaged in 
labour. It is specially inconsistent with Socialism, for under 
its rule officialism will be indefinitely increased. It also leads 
to the conclusion that labour, being an aristocratic employ- 
ment, must exist in great abundance, so that human desire 
must be proportionately increased, and this is the basis upon 
which the whole fabric of economicism falls to the ground. 
No scientist can countenance such a scheme, his method of 
thinking being the direct reverse, and leads to the ultimate 
conclusion that labour must be abolished that is, labour in 
the current meaning of the word. It is impossible to create 
an aristocracy of labour so long as respectability remains at- 
tached to the theories of ideas which form the basis of our 
educational institutions. Another weakness in the scheme is 
that the labourers cannot receive the whole produce of their 
labour so long as there are rulers, theorists, weaklings, un- 
employed people, &c., to be fed, clothed, and housed; and 
the same conditions which now exist must be perpetuated, 
one portion of the community wearing their lives away to 
support non-producers, no odds what the standard of value 
may be. So long as the sum of our desires remains unchanged, 
the quantity of labour required to appease them cannot be 
lessened. There must be some check to inordinate indulgence, 
and wealth must have some other basis than the defrauda- 
tion of posterity for the purpose of satiating our licentious 

With reference to money as the standard for measuring 
future obligations, the question arises, Why should mankind 


be divided into two classes: (i) creditors (masters), and (2) 
debtors (slaves) 1 If gold is required for hoarding up values, 
then why should values be hoarded up 1 We must also have 
the poor man's farthing, the rich man's guinea, and the 
shilling for the middle classes. Why should there be rich 
men and poor 1 Oh, some people are diligent and others lazy; 
some are penurious and others prodigal. Very good. But do 
the diligent and penurious possess the most property, and are 
the lazy and prodigal always sunk in the lowest depths of 
poverty ? Indeed, the ultimate analysis does not rest here : 
the scientist still wants to know why idle and improvident 
people should exist. 

Taking food as the basis of our subsistence and if we have 
too much raw material for its production, the surplus may be 
converted into clothing, or into trees with which we can build 
houses let us now examine the pretensions of money and 
labour as a standard, measured by the scientific basis. In 
order to show more closely the scientific value and the 
economic price of those articles of diet which are of general 
consumption, I have prepared the following table of com- 
parisons. For the principles involved in the table I am in- 
debted to the indefatigable labours of J. Kcenig, one of the most 
distinguished of the German food chemists. He has compared 
the market prices of foods during a number of years, and 
found that those containing the highest percentage of protein 
brought the highest prices, and the foods rich in fat brought 
more than those rich in carbo-hydrates. The discussions on 
this subject, which have been specially fierce with reference 
to cattle foods, reacted on the market prices, and the re- 
lation of the nutrients now possesses high scientific value. 
At first the relative values were 5 units for the protein, 
3 for the fats, and i for the carbo-hydrates, which relation 
lias 'been pretty closely adhered to for articles of human 
consumption; but for stock foods, a gradual sinking in the 
relative values of the protein and fat has been taking place or, 
rather, it has been found that the carbo-hydrates possess a 
relatively higher value, especially due to the fact that cellulose, 
which was formerly regarded as being very indigestible, is 
now known to possess a high feeding value, not only as having 



a high digestive coefficient, but also as having a mechanical 
value. In human dietetics the mechanical value of cellulose 
is also high, although the digestive coefficient is usually low, 
but the quantity consumed is usually so small that its con- 
sideration is a matter of little consequence. The relation in 
stock foods has recently been narrowed down to 3:2:1 
respectively for the nutrients in the order already named. 
In cattle-feeding it is always understood that the food is 
consumed in the raw state, and I have no hesitation whatever 
in accepting the narrow relation for the scientific vegetarian, 
and the wide relation (5 : 3 : i) for the economic vegetarian, 
for when cooked foods are consumed the relation must be 
wider, due to the coagulation and consequent lower digestive 
coefficient of the protein. It is argued that the digestibility 
of the starch is improved by cooking, due to the bursting of 
the granules, but this effect cannot compensate the advan- 
tages gained by the thorough mastication which raw foods 
must receive. Besides, the rejection of 3 units of value for 
the purpose of saving i unit is as irrational in principle as 
throwing away a penny in order to save a farthing. Having 
shown pretty clearly that biology is the basis of dietetics, 
not chemistry, and my inquiry being scientific, I am obliged 
to accept the narrow relation. If any objection be urged 
against this choice, the critic who chooses to figure on the 
wide relation will find that he can gain nothing. As my 
object is to prove the fallacy of money as a standard of value, 
not to preach dietetics, I have also included animal foods in 
the table. 



Table showing the Scientific Values of Different Articles of Food 
Compared with Market Prices. 

Ratio be- 

Chemical Analysis. 

tween Shil- 

Names of Articles. 

Units of 

Prices in 

lings and 
Units ; also 
the Pur- 



hydrates. 1 

per 100 Ibs. 

Power of a 





Per cent. 

Wheat (crushed) 




1 10.8 


I 5-4 

Wheat (whole) . 




1 10.8 2 


1 13-3 

Oatmeal . 






i 8.0 







1 5-3 

Rice . 






I 6.2 







i 14.5 

Eggs . 





I I.O 

Milk (whole) 





1 1. 60 

I 1.9 

Milk (skim) 






I 3.2 

Cheese (fat) 






I 2.O 

Cheese (skim) . 






i 6.0 







i 1.4 

Beef (fat) . . . 





I I.O 

Beef (lean) 





I 1.2 






I 2.3 

Fruit (fresh) 





I 1.2 

Fruit (dried) 3 . 






I 1.7 

Almond nuts ) 

(shelled) \ 






I 2.0 

Potatoes . 





I 4-2 

Cabbage . 






1 i-5 




1 6.66 

i 6.0 

In the above table I have taken ordinary average retail 
prices in London for foods of fair average quality. This 
table has great significance in the solution of the social pro- 
blem. Beef or eggs may be taken as the standard of com- 
parison, for in both cases one shilling purchases one unit of 

1 The carbo-hydrates include sugar, starch, cellulose, and dextrin. 

2 This sum is obtained by multiplying the protein by 3, the fat by 2, and 
the carbo-hydrates by I, then adding the products. By using the wide 
relation (5:3:1), the total units would be 137.4, and a shilling would 
purchase 16.5 units, instead of 13.3. 

3 Fruits have only a trace of fat, so that nuts are best adapted to make 
up the deficiency. The large percentage of sugar which fruits contain 
renders "jam" worse than useless. Nuts also supply the deficiency of 
protein in the fruits. 


nutritive value, and they are the dearest of all the twenty-one 
articles of diet contained in the list, maize and whole wheat 
being the cheapest, and the other articles varying according 
to the figures given. The question now arises, Why do we 
pay a shilling per unit for meat or eggs when we can get 
13.3 identical units of nutritive value in wheat for the same 
money? Putting it in another shape : If a shilling's worth 
of meat will support a person for one day, the same shilling 
will purchase sufficient wheat to last 13.3 days, and so on 
throughout the whole list, providing a selection be made 
which gives the proper albuminoid ratio ; for example, no- 
body can live on butter or sugar, so that they must be eaten 
with foods containing high percentages of protein. The most 
striking feature of the table, however, is the fact that the 
dearest foods are, as a rule, those which require the most 
labour, are also the least adapted for human consumption, 
and require the greatest area of land for their production. 
For example, if we consumed the grain ourselves, instead of 
feeding it to stock, all the labour in feeding, tending, and 
housing the animals would be saved, and also, as we have seen, 
large areas of land would be saved. To discuss this ques- 
tion in detail the value of the by-products would have to be 
considered ; but, on the face of the question, the margin is so 
wide that we can clearly see a ratio established between the 
three significant factors land, labour, and money. The more 
labour expended the greater the quantity of land and money 
required, and the more useless and wasteful becomes the 
commodity. Therefore labour destroys values instead of 
creating them, and, as we shall also see, the labour applied 
to the land in the production of foods is also a destructive 
agency. In every way we turn we find that economic values 
are created by the destruction of scientific values, which 
proves the fallacy of abstract methods and the crimes to 
which they lead. If we examine more closely into the cause, 
we shall find that people consume expensive foods, not 
because such articles are wholesome or even palatable, but 
simply because they can afford to live luxuriously, must make 
a display of their respectability, and are ashamed to be seen 
sneaking into a vegetarian restaurant for a sixpenny dinner 


when they can afford to spend as many shillings in a grill- 
shop for the same number of units of nutritive value. Money 
and labour, as standards of value, must stand or fall together, 
and if they fall abstract education must tumble down as a 
component part of the same fabric. There is no possibility 
of separating material and moral problems : it would be just 
as rational to attempt to live after our bodies and souls are 
separated, or to perpetuate a vital organ when the structure 
and function are rent asunder. 

Another significant lesson may be learned from the table, 
namely, that dried fruits are imported from Greece and 
other distant countries more cheaply than we can raise fresh 
fruits at home that if we encouraged fruit-growing until the 
produce of our orchards and gardens became about 50 per 
cent, cheaper our fruit trade would be ruined, so that land 
monopoly, which prevents free access to the land, must be 
encouraged if trade is to flourish. It will not do to say that 
imports may be neglected and exports encouraged, for exports 
are settled by imports. The encouragement of agriculture 
and commerce side by side is the gravest form of lunacy. 
Civilised peoples are doubly heatheuised : they destroy one 
another both in times of peace and in times of war, and their 
education consists in acquiring a technical knowledge of the 
instruments and engines of destruction. 

In my observations concerning money I proceeded on the 
assumption that it was something which somebody could 
define. If money be the standard of value, it is necessary to 
know what money is ; and even on this question our specula- 
tive thinkers cannot agree. Some confine it to gold ; some 
include silver, especially under bimetallic rule; and other 
authorities would take offence if they were accused of not 
knowing that drafts, bank and other promissory notes, bills 
of exchange, &c., are money. A credit balance, one would 
think, should also be money; so should an honest and solvent 
man's word, which is said to be as good as the bank, and 
certainly serves the purposes of money. Some "currency 
quacks" think that gold cannot change its value, because it 
could not be a standard if it were liable to change, but economic 
forces do not bend to this theory. Some regard gold (and 


silver) as money because the coins are stamped with the image 
and superscription of the king, whose fiat gives them their 
value ; while others are of the humble opinion that the metal 
from which the coins are made must have the same value 
before as after the Minting process. This latter view is very 
disloyal, for it depreciates the omnipotence of kingly fiats. 
Some insist that a currency system should be bimetallic, and 
then arises a wrangle about the meaning of bimetallism. 
Some think that trade would become brisk or brisker if the 
State issued an unlimited quantity of paper money and set it 
in circulation, while others maintain that the monetisation of 
silver would be .the best means of stimulating trade, for this 
method would increase the quantity of money. Some who 
have espoused the cause of agriculture contend that our 
agricultural depression has been caused by the demonetisation 
of silver, and urge as a remedy the return to bimetallism all 
civilised nations to unite and fix a given ratio between gold and 
silver, and to make the latter a legal tender. Some are in favour 
of utilising both gold and silver coins as standards, but making 
the one independent of the other, no ratio being fixed ; while 
others advocate the use of coins composed of an admixture 
of gold and silver in a certain ratio, and the opponents of 
these two schools protest their adherence to the single gold 
standard. Some insist on peremptory methods of reducing 
our monetary system to a sound basis, while others think that 
the change should be gradual, for when the ruled are robbed 
by slow gradations there is less danger of an uprising, and 
business confidence receives no violent shocks. These are a 
few of the results of the attempts made to place our monetary 
system on the soundest principles of political economy. 

If our financial theorists could divest their minds of econo- 
mic abstractions, they could not fail to see that gold (or silver) 
possesses no virtue differing from any other article of commerce, 
and that sovereign omniscience is just as potent in establishing 
a ratio between the values of cats and dogs. If there is any 
difference it is one of degree, not of kind. Many financiers 
now admit this fact. Lord Liverpool says : " The Mint in- 
dentures of Charles I., James II., Queen Anne, and even of 
a part of the reign of George I, to the year 1717, had deter- 


mined that the guinea should pass at the rate or value of 
2os., and the other gold coins in proportion : yet they did not 
pass at that which was then their legal rate value, but at a 
much higher rate or value, and in a part of the reign of King 
William the guinea was current at even so high a value as 
308. This increased rate or value was not owing singly to a 
mistaken estimation at the Mint of the relative value of gold 
to silver, but the gold coins rose or fell as the silver coins 
were less or more perfect." During this period silver was 
the only legal standard in England, and gold coins were esti- 
mated by the silver basis, so that the guinea was 2 is., a 
shilling not being the twenty-first part of a guinea, as now. 
Besides, the political power of the king, and even that of his 
advisers, was greater then than now. If the fiat theories 
had any force, their champions make a mistake in not advo- 
cating the monetisation of marble or granite, forcing the coins 
on the public at gold values. At least they should make 
silver as valuable as gold. The value of gold and silver, like 
that of all other commodities, is regulated by human desire ; 
and when ladies cease to improve their beauty by wearing gold 
trinkets, or cease to desire silver chains and collars for their 
poodles, these metals will become cheaper, other conditions re- 
maining the same, and our bread and butterine will become rela- 
tively dearer, no odds whether the king be divine or human. 

These constant tinkerings with our monetary standards 
have caused many and serious trade disturbances, and have 
been the source of much demoralisation and robbery. Who 
has not heard of bondholders' conspiracies to demonetise silver, 
or government conspiracies to enrich our rulers by debasing 
the coinage when they failed to effectually rob the people by 
various schemes of taxation 1 Who has not heard of gamblers 
developing into millionaires through speculations in coins and 
bullions? These public robbers, not mentioning those of 
Stock Exchange notoriety, are the people who are to survive 
and go down to posterity, for their victims, according to the 
neo-Malthusian theories of population, must not get married, 
because they are not able to support themselves and families. 
If economic forces are conducive to the breeding of thieves, 
why would not a reversing of the forces be conducive to the 


breeding of honest men 1 Are these desperadoes producers ? 
Most certainly ; they produce human desire, thereby enhancing 
values by making commodities scarce, which encourages trade, 
and furnishes work for the unemployed. They require 
enormous areas of land for their support, thus raising rents 
and increasing the wealth of the nation. Who has not heard 
of stock speculators listening with all ears to the king's speech 
or the president's message, in order that they may be able to 
calculate more closely the effects upon human desire? And 
when a panic is thus created, or business confidence shaken, a 
new religion is inaugurated by casting the blame on the sun- 
spots. Listen to the ejaculations of the bloodhounds of war 
when it is their interest to influence human desire and bull 
the stock markets. Listen to the wailings of the impoverished, 
as well as those who feel discouraged under business reverses 
or trade depression, when they subsist on hopes of commercial 
revival, and wait diligently for something to turn up when 
money will again be abundant and freely circulated. 

Many minor instances might be adduced to show the fallacy 
of money as the standard of value. Is the value of a com- 
modity based on the wholesale or the retail price ? Let us 
suppose three parcels of land, each containing a house ; that 
the location is the same, or equally advantageous in every 
respect ; and that the cost, measured in money or labour, is 
also identical in each of the three instances. The parcels, 
owned respectively by A. B. and C., are now for sale. A. 
advertises in the papers and realises, after clearing advertising 
expenses, ^1000. B. not only advertises extensively, but 
also invokes the aid of the land agents, and nets 1200. C., 
who merely posts a notice " For Sale " on the front of his 
house, finds a customer for ^800. Now, what is the real 
economic value or price of each of these parcels of land 1 The 
same rule applies to all marketable commodities. Here it 
must be admitted that business capacity, or incapacity, has 
something to do with the standard of value the ability, or 
inability, to appeal to or awaken human desire. What be- 
comes of the economic standard when a commodity is en- 
hanced in value through the manufacturer's or trader's 
honesty or ability to supply the article pure and unadulte- 


rated ? What becomes of the economic standard when, to-day, 
the speculator purchases from the State a monopoly, and, to- 
morrow, the commodity is taxed up to the full value of the 
monopoly ] All our lands being monopolised and the case 
is not altered by saying that they belong to the State what 
is the true value of each product of the land ? There is no 
other conclusion than that the true standard of economic wealth 
lies in some ratio between monopoly and desire, and the 
economist who first establishes this ratio is the only man who 
can solve the social problem in the abstract category. Special 
values are subject to the same inconsistencies. For example, 
a picture or statue of a dying man bleeding on a cross might 
have great value, apart from the market price, for a blood- 
thirsty man in a bloodthirsty age ; but it would be utterly 
valueless in an age when human sympathies predominate. A 
noteworthy instance of economic value may be cited by the 
practice of substituting margarine for butter. The latter, 
although an utterly useless commodity, and costing much 
money and labour in its production, must have a place on our 
tables because the habit has become fashionable, we must 
"butter" our bread in restaurants even though the stuff be 
composed of the vilest filth, and we must often pay butter 
prices for stuff which costs a mere nominal amount of money 
and labour. Here we find that a sort of indefinable, tyran- 
nical, apistic abstraction called Fashionism is an important 
factor in the creation of economic values ; and this principle 
is still more aptly illustrated with reference to our habits of 
dress. It is that peculiar form of desire which impels us to 
cling to the " wisdom of our fathers." 

Having shown the close relation between money and labour 
as a standard of value, it may be urged that it is illogical to 
say that commodities can be made scarce by the expenditure 
of labour. This question can only be decided by the basis 
which is assumed. Commodities are certainly increased by 
labour, but it must not be forgotten that the logical conclusion 
of this process ends in the destruction of commodities as form- 
ing a portion of wealth ; for when over-production reaches its 
ultimate the commodities have no value, and then cease to be 
commodities in the economic sense. There are two methods 


of increasing value : (i) restriction of the production, and (2) 
inflation of human desire. This is the real dualism in the 
problem relating to values. The untenable and illogical char- 
acter of the position is this, that national wealth is created by 
the production of a great number of scarce commodities. The 
situation forces society into two classes; (i) the producers 
who make the commodities, and (2) the non-producers who, 
by inflating human desire, make them scarce. The former 
produce concrete, and the latter abstract, values, if values are 
produced. Here we have the concrete and the abstract, the 
material and the moral, phases of the question. It cannot be 
denied that the abstract phase is the basis of wealth, for 
political economy has been built up by men who have adopted 
the abstract method of thinking. The situation is aptly illus- 
trated by the abstract conception of faith, or belief in miracles. 
Which is the basis of the miracle, the belief or the actual per- 
formance? Do miracles exist because a universal belief in 
them prevails, or because ample proof has been educed with 
reference to their performance? Those who have faith in 
miracles can easily understand how wealth can be produced 
by making it scarce. 

Under economic rule, the man of money is monarch of all 
he surveys. He it is who encourages trade, causes money to 
circulate, and increases the national wealth. He is deified for 
the good he has done, even after his business collapse, and 
after bringing untold suffering upon many families, no differ- 
ence how ill-gotten his pillage may have been. If I were 
asked who was the most selfish, omnipotent, despotic, blood- 
thirsty, and soul-destructive of all the Gods, my answer would 
be GOLD. 

But there is also another view of standards which belongs to 
this chapter, and which cannot be evaded either in economic 
or in scientific institutions. Everybody knows what is meant 
by measures of length (yard, foot, inch, &c.), and weight 
(pounds, ounces, &c.), and capacity (gallons, quarts, &c.), and 
value (. s. d., &c.) ; but few of us have sufficient ability or 
learning to comprehend the inextricable muddle involved in 
our system of weights and measures, <fec., especially when 
compared with the simplicity and efficiency of the metric or 


decimal system used on the Continent and by our own 
scientists, the comprehension of which demands neither learn- 
ing nor ability. Many of us believe that our economic system 
of weights, measures, and currency is the simplest in the 
world, but this opinion cannot alter the fact, which may be 
tested in various ways. I mention these circumstances be- 
cause my new sj^stem may be pronounced a failure if measured 
by English standards, while, under a decimal system, it might 
be regarded as a grand success ; and there should be a rela- 
tion between all measures, including time and force, as well 
as space, capacity, &c. Let two countries compete for com- 
mercial supremacy under identical conditions, except that the 
one adopts the decimal and the other the English system of 
reckoning, and the fate of the latter would soon be sealed. 
And yet we expect our commercial supremacy to be main- 
tained ! The decimal system of coinage adopted in America, 
Germany, and France would alone be sufficient to destroy our 
commercial supremacy under otherwise identical conditions ; 
for under the former the business manager can make mental 
calculations to such an extent as to save the expenses of a 
clerk and the outlay of the materials used in making paper 
calculations; and even after this stroke of economy he has 
sufficient time left to enable him to speak politely and civilly 
to his customers, and to learn something about the quality of 
his goods. These facts prove that, even in the abstract cate- 
gory, science must seize the reins of economicism. It is a 
satire on our intelligence that the greatest economic nation 
should have the worst economic system. Indeed, men of the 
right stamp of intelligence are not those who delight in com- 
mercial speculations, or in developing the theories of political 

My position now is to establish a scientific basis of value, 
and to discover a form of wealth which no amount of scarcity 
can augment. 



THE history of mankind is characterised as ebbs and flows of 
objectivity and subjectivity. These conditions, being the out- 
come of artificial education and circumstances, and bearing no 
relation to natural instincts, must continue until a scientific 
basis of human conduct be found and acted upon, or until our 
race becomes extinct. Of all animals, man is the farthest re- 
moved from the laws of his being and development, and those 
creatures which render the strictest obedience to these laws 
are the fittest to survive in the struggles for existence. The 
function cannot remain after the structure disappears, so that 
the human soul cannot be perpetuated after man becomes 
structurally extinct, and an atrophied structure carries a 
weakened function. Religion and philosophy are both abstrac- 
tions, sometimes exhibiting an objective, and sometimes a 
subjective, phase. The Greek religion was essentially ob- 
jective, and was conducive to the development of thought 
(philosophy, science, and art), while the Hebrew religion was 
essentially subjective and conservative, the outer world being 
a mere symbol of the inner consciousness. Descriptive poetry 
is characteristic of objective religion, while impassioned poetry 
is characteristic of the subjective form. 

In my inquiry into the origin of religion, I have not intro- 
duced the scientific researches of recent inquirers who main- 
tain that Christianity has no historical evidence to support it, 
for many of the most important questions may still be regarded 
as debatable. The strongest evidence against Christianity, 
the facts of which cannot be disputed, is contained in the 
history of the origin and development of all religions, and in 
the fact that the circumstances and necessities of the times 


irresistibly tended to restore unity and harmony of thought by 
some method of conciliating the dualism of objectivity and 
subjectivity; and, owing to the predominance of abstract 
methods of thinking, and to the widespread belief in miracles, 
natural laws were twisted into conformity with the prevailing 
ideas, so that Christ's Incarnation was intended as the realisa- 
tion of the ideal, and his Ascension as the idealisation of the 
real, thus conciliating both the Jewish and the Greek methods. 
Recent research into the historical evidence of the writings 
contained in the New Testament tends to substantiate the 
proofs derived from other scientific sources. Christianity was 
just as much a necessity of the times as was feudalism in later 
centuries ; but as the origin of the world can now be accounted 
for through the scientific method of thinking, all abstract 
speculations must, sooner or later, fall into disrepute and 
ultimate perdition. No deity can now originate who is not 
obliged to obey the laws of his being and development, 
although he may be vastly more highly developed than crea- 
tures upon our earth, the legitimate conclusion being that 
natural laws are immutable, and by obeying them we worship 
our creator, and evolve into deities that is, we enter the 
Kingdom of Heaven. By this method we obey all deities, 
both him who is the highest, and those who are lower in the 
scale of evolution. The existence of a deity is conditioned by 
his obedience to the laws of his being and development. 

It is desirable here to note the tendency of a few of the 
new religions which have been built upon the ruins of Chris- 
tianity. Theism is a misnomer, its basis being philosophy 
rather than religion. Rejecting the Holy Scriptures as a 
truthless and an immoral book, it acknowledges the existence 
of an Omnipotent God who operates through natural laws, 
and his creatures attain a more or less perfect knowledge of 
him through the exercise of their reasoning faculties. What 
destroys it as a religion is, that it acknowledges no great 
prophet or founder its absence of authority and the Theist 
considers it to be every person's right and duty to think for 
himself in matters of religion. If there is any shade of 
difference between Theism and philosophy it is this, that 
what the former regards as a duty the latter regards as a 


privilege. The Theists accept the truths of science to aid 
them in attaining higher conceptions of the Deity, whom they 
regard as operating through natural laws. If they carried 
this truth to its legitimate conclusion, and thus obeyed these 
laws, they would be Humanitists in the most exalted signifi- 
cation of the name. Their philosophy, which they call re- 
ligion, can possess no element of perpetuity so long as they 
operate within the abstract category, and they only go through 
another cycle of thought which was, and always will be, 
doomed to decay : indeed, when science is brought to the 
aid of abstraction, the doom of the latter is all the more cer- 
tain and impetuous. In Positivism, on the other hand, which, 
in England, embraces the Religion of Humanity, we find tho 
religious basis ; but it is not the religion of humanity unless 
the history of the past is taken as the basis of humanity. It 
is the religion of Comte; it is Comteanity just as Christi- 
anity is the religion of Christ. It is the old, old story of 
ancestor-worship. A few examples will illustrate this truth. 
The late William Frey, in an excellent little work 1 appealing 
to the Positivists, says : " Auguste Comte, in his statements 
concerning a flesh diet, merely expressed the opinion which 
was unanimously accepted by all men of science at the time he 
lived." Mr. Frey, as a vegetarian, renounced the flesh-eating 
practice of the founder of his religion, and it remains to be 
seen whether his fellow- Positivists will follow his example. 
If so, the religious character of the Religion of Humanity 
becomes weakened, and a precedent is established for the 
renunciation of all the principles of Positivism. Let us now 
take a glance into the future, say a thousand years hence, when 
English will be a dead language, unless scientific reforms 
in our institutions are grounded. The practice of meat- 
eating will then, in all probability, be regarded as a relic of 
barbarism. The philologists of those enlightened days will 
tell us that meat did not necessarily include the flesh of 
animals, that the expression "grace before meat" meant 
before meals, whether there was meat on the table or not, 
and the Positivist will then say that an all-wise being like 

1 Vegetarianism in Connection with the Religion of Humanity : Scien- 
tific Proofs. 


Comte could not possibly have been so barbarous as to have 
eaten meat that the vice was, therefore, not Comte's, but 
reposed in the false interpretation of history. Comte's 
divinity thus becomes established, and Comteanity then 
reaches the highest stage of subjectivity. Another question, 
however, arises which casts serious doubts on the divinity 
of Comte. 

In the June (1889) issue of the Nineteenth Century there is 
an article entitled " An Appeal against Female Suffrage," 
which has the signatures of a large number of the lady aris- 
tocracy of England, and clearly bears the stamp of Positivism. 
Indeed, it is one of the tenets of the Eeligion of Humanity 
that women should not enjoy the franchise, and that the 
professions, as well as the trade of politics, are not fitted for 
women. But the time must come, in the interests of humanity, 
when the occupations will be made suitable for the people, 
and not the people for the occupations, as is the case under 
economic rule, and when no gentleman will follow an occu- 
pation which is a disgrace to a woman. What will become 
of Comteanity then 1 There is only one conclusion, namely, 
that, like Christianity, it must sink into perdition. The lesser 
force must yield to the greater. Thus we find that, in the 
abstract category, neither religion nor philosophy possesses 
the elements of perpetuity. By devoting their energies to 
speculative thought, they drag us away from connection with 
the means of our subsistence, thus creating a class of slaves 
who must toil for the support of the aristocracy who are 
engaged in the framing of abstract fabrics " castles in the 
air" and the tendency of abstract methods to remove us 
from the laws of our being and development proves the 
suicidal character of the system. Those other systems, such 
as Agnosticism and Secularism, which are being built on the 
ruins of Christianity, are fundamentally destructive in their 
tendency. Their weakness consists mainly in the fact that 
their patriarchs have failed to recognise the truth that all 
religions must have their basis in the perversion of some 
natural instinct in man, so that all moral forces which are 
wholly destructive can never satisfy the longings and cravings 
of the human heart. In like manner, all philosophies are 


cartoons of our natural ideas. Our nervous structures have 
assumed unnatural functions, and no abstract processes can 
generate harmony. All abstract methods, be they religion, 
philosophy, economics, or politics, must go through the same 
process of decay, for they can only end in objectivity, and, 
by basing respectability upon the theories of ideas, can only 
result in class warfare the creation of a democracy who pro- 
duce concrete values, and an aristocracy who produce values 
in the abstract. When the real is based upon the ideal, the 
door is open for access to the means of subsistence by super- 
natural processes, as is aptly illustrated by the theories of 
population ; but as nature only supplies food through natural 
channels, the constant pressure must end in the extinction of 
abstract methods, and in the development of science. In the 
final struggle, people as a body are impelled by starvation 
and the pangs of extreme bodily endurance to yield to the 
real, however strong their professions and protestations may 
be with reference to the supremacy of the ideal. An ideal 
basis of existence can only be maintained under conditions 
in which people will voluntarily sacrifice their lives to their 
ideas, but the instinct of race preservation is too strong to 
admit of the practicability of the ideal basis. In other words, 
scientific subjectivity is master of the situation. 

The history of religion amongst civilised people proves the 
insufficiency of abnormal and unnatural forms of subjectivity. 
For instance, the Salvation Army of to-day is the Methodism 
of a century and a half ago. The latter was then a strongly 
subjective element, but since the denomination has become 
opulent and powerful, it can now afford to confine its duties 
within the bounds of economic respectability, and its material 
interests consist in proclaiming its property to be consecrated 
grounds, and thus inaccessible to mundane control. In other 
language, it is now essentially an objective institution a 
property defence association and its former duties have been 
usurped by the Salvation Army, which, under economic rule, 
must undergo a similar process of evolution. When a certain 
stage of objectivity is reached, the denomination becomes a 
political party, and strengthens the powers of the State. With 
every process of such evolutions the social situation becomes 


more deplorable, for the increase of all temporal and spiritual 
offices casts heavier burdens upon the real producers, and it 
is not therefore surprising that the suffering masses lose faith 
in our institutions and organise into a subjective element on 
the basis of humanity. Our old and venerable institutions 
which have been founded upon the theories of ideas have no 
charm for them, and science, which busies itself with stern 
realities, is their only succour. Even the dreadful theory of 
everlasting torment, which could only have originated in a 
bloodthirsty age, has failed to coerce us to submit to the 
sovereignty of the ideal. The scientific method must also 
revolutionise our ideas of faith ; and the time is at hand when 
it will be considered more respectable to attach our faith to 
the credible than to attempt to convince ourselves that we 
believe in the incredible. The theory that miracles must 
abound in order to quicken our faith has proved a failure in 
the stern realities of life ; and if it be urged that there is no 
virtue in believing the credible, just as there is no virtue in 
abstaining from theft when commodities are abundant, then 
we are confronted with the relation between words and the 
entities, or nonentities, which they are supposed to express. 
The existence of a word does not prove the existence of a 
corresponding entity ; neither does it follow that every non- 
entity has a word which can be utilised for its expression. 
If abstract entities, or the negation of concrete entities 
such as scarcity must abound in order that the word honesty 
may be retained in our language, then all I have to say here 
is, that this theory of ethics has proved a failure, and is 
opposed to scientific methods. If a new commodity be made 
scarce for the purpose of developing our wealth and honesty, 
it also follows that every newly discovered nonentity, accom- 
panied by a new word for its expression, and every fresh 
miracle essayed for the purpose of enabling us to quicken 
our faith, are progressive steps in the moral world. The 
philosopher who constructs a new economic system in the 
abstract category must arrange his commodities or his dis- 
ciples in such a manner that everybody is always on the 
point of stealing, and yet always refrains from theft, and 
from this basis he may be able to found a new school of morals. 



Agriculture has been captured by economicism, and our 
agricultural authorities have committed the same blunder in 
accepting chemistry to be the basis of their science as our 
doctors have done in accepting it to be the basis of dietetics. 
As we shall see, the principles of nutrition and the law of 
development do not differ in plants and animals. The basis 
of agriculture and dietetics should be biology, not chemistry, 
and should there be an apparent conflict, the former science 
must rule, as Scholasticism had to submit to Theology when 
disagreement took place on technical differences. For example, 
the biologist will have no hesitation in saying that grass is 
the best food for cows ; and if the chemist proves that bran or 
oilcake produces more milk, the biologist will say, " So much 
the worse for the cow." A cow may be stimulated by artificial 
foods and drugs to give an unnatural flow of milk, but such a 
process of feeding can only tend to the degeneracy of the cow 
and to the final extinction of the v/hole breed, especially when 
other animals compete in the struggle for existence. Econo- 
micism favours the chemical basis, for we are driven to draw 
on the future that is, to rob posterity in all departments 
of human activity, and so much so in our live-stock industry 
that the heating of cow-stables by means of stoves and the feed- 
ing of the most easily digested foods are now advocated, which 
deteriorate the quality of the milk and the indirect products 
of the cow cheese, butter, &c. Exactly the same principle is 
applied to the feeding of plants, and here also economicism 
favours the chemical basis. In applying chemical fertilisers, the 
phosphates are made soluble, by means of which, under favour- 
able conditions, the first crop gains an advantage in point of 
yield, but the vitality of the plant is impaired. The same objec- 
tion applies to the use of nitrate of soda and sulphate of am- 
monia in place of the natural organic matter in the soil ; also to 
the use of the soluble forms of potash, such as the sulphate 
and the chloride of potassium. Farmers are compelled to use 
these soluble forms of fertilisers, because, under economic 
rule, they must commit robbery, and draw on the future, in 
order to settle their high rents, or pay off their mortgages or 
other debts. In our economic system of dietetics, we also 
draw on the future both with reference to our own vitality 


and to the waste of soil-fertility, especially in our large cities 
which are the products of economicism. Chemistry is an 
objective science and is under the control of economicism, 
while biology, the subjective basis, which has scarcely yet 
made its influence felt, is the only source of relief from all 
our economic ills. The chemical basis of dietetics leads to the 
conclusion that mineral drugs can be utilised as nutritive and 
curative agents, which favours all the orthodox schools of 
medical quackery ; while biology, which insists that man must 
live in harmony with vital laws, has a tendency to destroy 
the medical profession. Unless the orthodox doctor can prove 
that his nostrums can make amends for violations of the laws 
of nature, his occupation is gone. The theological theory 
that man is a supernatural animal, and is not, therefore, 
bound to obey natural laws, favours the bemuddled schools of 
medical quackery. Medicine is not a science, but a developed 
form of alchemy the development of an ancient superstition 
just as our laws are the development of heathen philosophy 
and theology. The biologist can make no effectual progress 
in his science until he removes the superstitions which cling 
to our systems of economics. Before the scientist can make 
his influence practically felt he must conquer the fields of 
agriculture, economics, philosophy, and theology. He stands 
alone against the extreme objectivity into which all civilised 
nations have fallen an extreme which must, in the near 
future, bring about a reaction of some form of subjectivity. 
Our whole system of education is profoundly objective. In 
the very essence of economic rule, it must be so. Professor 
Tyndall, for example, estimates that nine-tenths of our 
educated classes are Balfourists, or adherents of abstract 
rights, while Professor Beesly thinks that nineteen-twentieths 
would be nearer the mark, and I dare say a very large per- 
centage of them would, if they had the opportunity, out- 
Balfourise Balfourism in nineteenth century atrocities. The 
Irish question is that of the rights of humanity rather than a 
Home Rule problem, and although Nationalism is inconsistent 
with Humanitism, we must not forget the force of circum- 
stances. Under a reign of justice and equality, the Irish 
would not be Nationalists so much as enthusiasts in the 


cause of humanity, and their supporters should not lose 
sight of the fact that the real struggle is for a universal 
principle. So far as the social problem is concerned, Home 
Rule in itself will have no greater effect than a change of 
government would have in France, or a return to Protection 
in England. The source of objectivity amongst our educated 
classes is not far to seek. In our higher and highest insti- 
tutions of learning, the theories of "vested rights" in the 
privileged classes are still taught, and the legitimate conclusion 
is, that men of learning must also have a monopoly of the 
branches of education through which they derive their sub- 
sistence. The same principle applies to our professions, and 
the question is not what end these abstract rights or theories 
subserve, but how they can be made to influence human de- 
sire. Ancient institutions and ceremonies must therefore be 
conserved in order that men of education, with the therewith 
conjoined social standing, may enjoy occupations in keeping 
with their dignity and respectability; and the masses are 
taught to believe that such functionaries are useful as con- 
sumers of the products of their labour, for any slacking off in 
the consumption tends to throw the labourers out of employ- 
ment, or, these occupations being abandoned, the educated 
would be obliged to compete with ordinary workers in the 
labour markets, thus reducing the wages. An increase of un- 
belief in religion, or of the moral or sanitary condition of the 
people, would, by the same method of thinking, have the same 
effects, for then clergymen, lawyers, and doctors would also 
be cast into the labour markets. The most heavily taxed 
commodities are those which tend to demoralise the people. 
All these evils and inconsistencies are the results of the 
theories of monopoly and vested rights, and of the utilisation 
of the ideal as the standard of our moral conduct. This ab- 
straction is carried so far that many of the labouring classes 
are induced to believe that it is the duty of the unemployed 
rich to waste commodities which they cannot consume iii 
order to furnish labour for the working classes. It is rather 
surprising that our economists do not advocate an increase 
of population to consume the surplus commodities in times 
of over-production ; but, instead of doing so, they follow the 


abstract method of thinking by asserting that, when our 
markets are glutted, there is then over-population, because 
there are so many people out of employment. In their way of 
thinking, the number of the unemployed is a measure of the 
extent of over-population ; and yet, if these surplus labourers 
were removed, our markets would be still more congested, 
for there would be less people to consume the over-produced 
commodities. Whatever way we turn, we find inconsisten- 
cies and absurdities, and such must continue so long as we 
operate from an abstract basis, or find ulterior dualisms to be 
solved. The condition has led us to despair, and to affirm, 
in the words of Bastiat, that " What is, is what ought to be " 
in other words, "What is, is right" the inference being 
that we should stop grinding economic theories. If " What 
is, is right," then what has been, has been right, and what 
will be, will be right : therefore, when scientific principles 
prevail, they will be right. 

One of the best tests of a theory is the conclusions to which 
it inevitably leads. If, as some theorists maintain, a greater 
population can be sustained on animal than on vegetable 
foods, then the population may be still further increased there- 
through that the ox be first fed to the hog, before he is con- 
sumed by human beings, for the consumers, it is supposed, 
would then have both the ox and the hog. This theory might 
be carried out indefinitely : for example, the ox might be fed 
to the hog, the hog to the hen, the hen to the fox, the human 
beings then consuming the fox. When all the beasts of the 
forest and the air thus became domesticated, and if the popu- 
lation still pressed against the means of subsistence, a remedy 
for over-population might then be introduced by feeding the 
final animal under domestication to the worms, the latter 
being used for human consumption. Nobody having ever 
proposed to try this experiment for the increase of population, 
or for the relief of over-population, the theory should fall to 
the ground. Equally absurd is the theory that the fertility 
of the soil can be increased by the manure from domesticated 
animals ; and yet this theory is accepted by all agricultural 
authorities and practical farmers. The soil's fertility could 
not be increased by this method, even if all the manure and 


all the carcasses of the animals were restored to the soil, 
whereas it is well known that in practice from 50 to 75 
per cent, of the manure and 80 or 90 per cent, of the 
carcasses are wasted. Granted, for the sake of argument, 
that the fertility of the soil can be increased in this manner, 
then what is the legitimate conclusion ? It is this, that if 
human excrements were saved by being utilised, say, on 
sewage farms, then instead of the proprietors of hotels and 
boarding-houses receiving board-money from their guests, the 
balance due would be in favour of the latter, for they re- 
turned more values than they received. However absurd this 
conclusion may appear, yet it is identical with the theory that 
domestic animals must be kept merely as manure machines. 
But these conclusions are only introductory to the main 
absurdity. The motto of our Eoyal Agricultural Society is, 
"Practice with Science." This method of thinking could 
only have originated in an age when abstract ideas pre- 
dominated. It has, for example, been ascertained by practical 
farmers that the productivity of the soil can be temporarily 
increased by manures and soluble fertilisers, and science must 
therefore be made subservient to practice ; but there is a great 
difference between fertility and productivity. In like manner, 
it has been ascertained through practice that there is more 
money earned in ruining the health and vitality of domesticated 
animals, for the purpose of obtaining fictitious prices, than in 
the adoption of natural methods of improvement, and here 
again science must be made subservient to this cruel and 
suicidal practice. Our agricultural authorities fail to recognise 
the fact that true practice is the basis of their science, and in 
order to bring out this truth more clearty, I will show that 
the Royal Agricultural Society of England are not carrying 
out their own motto except so far as it applies to economic 
practices. Before the era of domestication, all plants and 
animals must have struggled for their existence just as 
wild animals and weeds have to struggle now. The practice 
of many thousands of years has taught us that vitality under 
domestication has become impaired and this scientific truth 
applies to man himself as well as to domesticated plants and 
animals and yet all the economic practices, which scientific 


agriculture is made to subserve, are a direct violation of the 
practical experiences taught by history. We thus find that 
there is a sharp line between those practices which form the 
basis of science and those which form the basis of economics. 
In the sense that science is drawn from practice, the motto 
" Practice with Science " is a grand truth ; but it is utterly 
false in the method and interpretation of the Royal Agricul- 
tural Society. Using science in a wider sense so as to include 
true practice, from which it cannot be separated, the motto 
should be " Science with Practice " or, rather, science with 
art and when the Society recognise and act upon this truth 
our agriculture will flourish, but the attainment of this end is 
an impossibility so long as the abstract theory prevails that 
commerce is the basis of national prosperity. England, who 
promoted the economic idea, would, other conditions being 
identical, be the first nation to suffer the consequences of her 
folly ; but her insular position, which is a wall of protection, 
has a modifying influence. Already our agricultural districts 
are rapidly becoming depopulated, our people are flooding the 
cities in search of employment, the London County Council 
is encouraging this tendency by a system of cheap and com- 
fortable dwellings for the poor; and a great city may be 
defined as a target for the fiends of war. We boast of our 
expanding commerce, which is the same thing as to boast of 
the destruction of our agriculture, and it is our system of 
land monopoly which has made us "Mistress of the seas." 
If commerce were the true basis of national prosperity, this 
condition would be desirable ; otherwise national disaster 
and collapse must be inevitable. Through our trade ideas 
we lost the American colonies a century ago, and now the 
same ideas are alienating Canada from the mother-country 
and driving her into the American Union. Our colonial pos- 
sessions have virtually ceased to be of advantage to us as 
an outlet for our manufactured goods, for they have assumed 
the right to regulate their own tariffs and protect their own 
industries. They are ruled by the economic idea, and every 
generation witnesses a decline in that " United Empire 
Loyalty " which inspired the bosoms of their fathers. While 
all this is transpiring on the one hand, we go on conquering 


other trade centres amongst the barbarians under the pretext 
of civilising and Christianising them, but our resources cannot 
stand this wasteful process much longer. There is a move- 
ment favouring the encouragement of our agriculture by State 
aid, which must prove a lamentable failure, especially so long 
as it remains a conspiracy for the enhancement of agricultural 
rents. The conversion of the soil of the United Kingdom 
into a garden under the system of peasant proprietorship 
would be but the beginning of the evils of landlordism. 

One of the greatest fallacies of our century is the theory 
that war can be prevented by moral instrumentalities. The 
Socialists in particular are deeply impressed by this idea 
of universal fraternity and peace. Under economic rule, it 
would be just as rational to attempt a reversal of the course 
of the Niagara Falls. So long as commerce remains the basis 
of national prosperity, or economic practice the basis of 
science, so long as scientific wealth continues to be wasted 
and economic wealth increased, and especially so long as 
those who wage the wars and those who do the fighting be- 
long to different classes, there will continue to be starving 
millions and aggressive nations, and the State will be invoked 
to protect itself against their encroachments. Any new 
system which inspires public confidence may give temporary 
relief, as a period of " commercial prosperity " does now, but 
it is during such periods that the evils are hatched. Such 
forms of prosperity are mere ideas which have no basis in 
realities. Half-a-century ago Free-trade was the coming 
millennium ; we are now in the midst of it and still we 
do not seem to enjoy it. The coming millennium now is 
Socialism, but as the controlling forces are not changed, the 
same results must be anticipated. A century ago, the Eights 
of Man were to be the millennium of the future, and we are 
not even satisfied with that, although we have enjoyed it 
for so many decades. Individualists, who are an organised 
property defence association, cannot voluntarily give up their 
property for the relief of the distress amongst the masses 
without adopting the Socialistic idea, and if they wait until 
they are obliged to relinquish their hold, the machinery 
required for such a purpose can only be a tax upon them- 


selves, and by virtue of their resistance they cannot hope to 
be classed in the universal fraternity which is to be estab- 
lished. The universal sentiment of humanity is destructive 
of the Individualistic idea in any of its modified forms. The 
system has committed suicide. Under Socialism, it sounds 
very well in theory that every individual or family should 
draw his revenues from the State coffers, but it must not be 
forgotten that the funds have to pass through the hands of 
economic and designing men, that there is no likelihood of 
creating employment for all, much less securing remunerative 
wages, and that it is impossible for each to obtain the full 
produce of his labour, or its equivalent. Even should the 
State undertake to inflate human desire to such an extent 
that ample employment would be guaranteed to all, the 
machinery required for carrying out such a scheme would in 
itself be sufficient to rob the people of much of the produce 
of their labour. An aristocracy of labour cannot be estab- 
lished until all our existing ideas of things are completely 
revolutionised ; for it implies that people will be compelled 
to ho!d official positions or engage in literary employments 
just as they are now compelled to engage in manual labour ; 
and implies, moreover, that the amount of manual labour 
to be performed is as inexhaustible as literary and scientific 
research. Mental labour can be performed without robbing 
posterity, but manual labour never. The Socialistic millen- 
nium, so long as the operations are continued within the 
abstract category, must suffer the same fate as all previous 
millenniums. The direct source of the social trouble may be 
summed up in a word : the systematic robbery of posterity. 
We must not forget that we are the posterity of our ances- 
tors. This robbery may be classed under two heads : (i) 
the raw materials required for their subsistence, and (2) the 
vitality in the organic products of these materials. These 
are the results of economic forces. Omitting the soil's fer- 
tility, of which I have already spoken, our coal-beds are now 
mere matters of two or three generations, and our timber- 
supply is rapidly disappearing, but so long as the remainders 
bring an ever-increasing sum of money, we are induced to 
believe that our national wealth, in coal and timber, is on 


the increase. In like manner, wealth is created by wars, 
which strengthen the powers of the State, and posterity is 
obliged to shoulder the burdens. The force by which pos- 
terity is coerced to bear these burdens is ancestor-worship 
the monopoly of our minds and consciences. In plain words, 
we criminally produce offspring, heap debts upon them, rob 
them of the means by which they are to liquidate these 
debts, deprive them of sufficient vitality to appropriate the 
means of subsistence for their own maintenance, and then 
wage Avar against them to reduce their surplus numbers 
and coerce the survivors into a condition of contentment; 
and the victims must undergo a strict medical inspection 
in order to determine if they are fit subjects to be killed. 
This is the economic law of the survival of the fittest. As a 
compensation for these burdens, posterity receives the bless- 
ings of civilisation. We (or any other generation) have only 
one recourse : we must either defend the cause of the dead or 
that of the prospective living. Any generation which is so 
selfish as merely to defend its own cause can only rob the 
prospective living, without doing any honour to the dead, and 
any attempted solution of the social problem on this basis 
will unceremoniously precipitate disaster. Indeed, the social 
aggravation may be expressed in this way, that each living 
generation has espoused the cause of the dead against posterity. 
The basis of humanity has been the past instead of the future. 
And yet, as I have shown, we have made posterity the pliant 
instrument for giving economic values to the commodities of 
which it is deprived. We have been driven into these econo- 
mic extremes of objectivity with as much violence as our 
ancestors were driven into Feudalism and Christianity. If we 
do not put our shoulders to the robbery wheel, our neighbours 
will have all the better opportunity, so that we are obliged to 
plunder in order to prevent our neighbours from doing so, 
and they are obliged to do the same thing for the purpose 
of checking us. This is the whole law and gospel of social 
ethics and economics. The various new religions and philo- 
sophies which are being built upon the ruins of Christianity 
only tend to a greater divergency of human thought, and the 
same tendency appears in matters pertaining to our material 


well-being. The time may not yet be ripe : it may require 
two or three more periods of "commercial prosperity" to con- 
vince us that economicism must collapse by virtue of its own 
innate rottenness, and to drive ancestor-worship to its objec- 
tive extremity ; but it is to be hoped that there still remains 
in the human breast sufficient conscience to awaken our 
perishing souls to a sense of their accountability, and in our 
minds sufficient strength to extricate ourselves from the deep 
and dark abyss of objectivity into which we have fallen. 

Is man degenerating? This is a pertinent question in view 
of the subjects we have been discussing. Economically speak- 
ing, we are- progressing, which fact cannot be denied, and so 
long as we are making progress, it is difficult to understand 
how we can degenerate. Here again we strike a dualism 
between the abstract and the scientific method of thinking 


Scientific progress cannot be disjoined from the forces which 
lead to the perpetuity of mankind, whereas economic progress 
is bound up with man's extinction. All depends upon the 
category in which our thoughts move. If we are on the road 
to perdition, we are now making satisfactory progress ; and 
those who speak of moving in other directions, or in solving 
the social problem, should, one would think, be peremptorily 
suppressed. On the other hand, if our destination is at the 
terminus of the road which leads to salvation, this is another 
question, and there are grave problems to be solved. But it 
is said that we are making scientific progress that this is the 
age of science. But, as I have shown, science has been help- 
ing us on our way to perdition, and if this be our destiny 
science is doing commendable work. This fact I have shown 
in many ways, notably in making vital laws subordinate to 
those of the physical world, and in the tendency of new 
religions to use science as a stepping-stone iu the attainment 
of higher abstract ideas. The solution of the social problem 
may be said to consist in science rending asunder the fetters 
of economicism, as it has done with religion. What we want 
is subjective science, not objective that is, we must search 
in order that we may act, and not for the mere purpose of 
acquiring knowledge and of winning the applause of the 
economic world. Scientists made a progressive step when they 


freed themselves from the fetters of the Church, but they are 
still bound firmly in the chains of other forms of abstraction. 
It may be urged that the adoption of scientific methods is a 
proof of mental progressiveness, but this argument bears a 
fallacy. People's minds have become scientific through the 
failure of abstract methods to produce unity and harmony of 
thought, and to create contentment in matters pertaining to 
our material wants, rather than through a natural predisposi- 
tion in this direction. It is the outcome of circumstances, and 
any changes of this nature may take place under authenticated 
proofs of mental degeneracy. Under commercial prosperity, 
for example, economic theories tend to mould into a science 
and to produce harmony of thought, whereas under lengthy 
periods of commercial stagnation and depression there arises 
a tendency in the opposite direction. The fact that the 
philosophies and religions of to-day are not superior to 
those of ancient civilisations, despite the experience of 
two or three thousand years, is an unfavourable commen- 
tary on mental progress in the region of abstract thought. 
It is not just to say that our knowledge of economics is 
superior to that of the ancient Greeks, for they condemned 
economicism. The progress of invention is also the outcome 
of necessity, or of the circumstances of the times, and when a 
new idea once originates, its development is a matter of course. 
All these changes may take place under mental degeneracy. 
If we enjoy greater comforts than our forefathers, then these 
are mere abstractions, as I have illustrated by reference to 
temperatures, and tend to physical and mental degeneracy. 
We have even great politicians in our day, and it need not be 
denied that they have developed a certain amount of political 
and economic cunning, but this is no proof of an increase of 
general intelligence. To come to the point at once, it is a 
dualism to say that mental progress can take place under 
conditions of physical degeneracy ; it leads to the illogical in- 
ference that an atrophied and weakened structure may be 
conducive to strength and activity of its function. If this be 
not the case, we must follow the abstract idea that mind may 
have an existence independent of nervous structure, which 
leads to the theologic theory of unfunctional immortality. It is 


said that the human brain is increasing in size, relative to the 
size of the body ; but this, even recognising it as a fact, proves 
nothing, for it would be equally true to say that the body is 
decreasing, relative to the size of the brain. This change of 
relation may have a temporary existence ; but, viewed from 
the standpoint of the logical conclusion, it cannot possess 
the element of perpetuity. A great deal has been said about 
longevity as an element in human progress, and I do not 
dispute its claims as an important factor. The few statistics, 
however, which have been gathered showing the octogenarians 
or centenarians in different ages of the world prove little or 
nothing. Our allotted span of " threescore and ten " seems 
to apply to the average duration of life rather than extremes 
of longevity. The fact that Abraham died at the advanced 
age of 175 years is unassailable evidence of our degeneracy, 
and the lives of other antediluvian patriarchs substantiate 
this position. Zeno, the founder of the Stoics, whose diet was 
simple, consisting mainly of bread, figs, and honey, is said to 
have died at the age of ninety-eight years, and even then did 
not die a natural death, his days having been ended through 
violence. This is strong presumptive evidence in favour of 
a simple and vegetarian dietary ; and history records that 
Pythagoras (about 500 B.C.), who was the father of vege- 
tarianism, having observed that man had nothing in common 
with carnivorous animals, so far as dietetic structures and 
functions are concerned, married at the age of sixty years, and 
afterwards raised a family who were the pride of their country. 
Viewed from another standpoint, the evidence of our degene- 
racy, so far as longevity is concerned, is complete. Amongst the 
lower animals, the natural duration of life is five to eight times 
the period between birth and maturity, by which standard man's 
age should be at least a hundred years ; but the average has been 
reduced to less than twoscore. It is quite probable that pre- 
historic man lived several hundred years. Indeed, historical 
facts are no longer required to prove our degeneracy, physical 
and mental, for it is now well known that such is the inevit- 
able tendency of all organic life which is removed from the 
law of its being and development, and as man is farthest 
removed from this law, he must become the unfittest to 


survive. Granted that each century produces its man of 
genius and courage a man who has rendered tolerable 
obedience to the laws of nature and has profited by the 
experiences of past generations yet this cannot alter the 
destiny fixed by general disobedience. With physical and 
mental degeneracy, moral and spiritual ruin must follow in 
the train. Show me the man whose ear is deaf to the tales 
of human woe, and whose heart is callous to the piteous 
sights of suffering and distress the man who delights to 
vindicate the theories of abstract rights and I will show you 
a measure of moral decrepitude. 

The evolution of economic happiness is plain and simple. 
The happiness of the economic man can have no other basis 
than that of money-making that is to say, the power of 
drawing on large areas of land for his support, and of enslav- 
ing those who labour upon the land or in connection with its 
commodities. Money is a land title. If money-making is 
the basis of happiness, money-losing must be the basis of econo- 
mic misery. Admitting that it is revolting to the nature of 
the true scientist or the true artist to be under the painful 
necessity of making money, we are still confronted by the 
theory that the greatest happiness must accrue to the greatest 
number. It pricks the humane heart to the quick when the 
possessor thinks of or sees the butcher's dagger being thrust 
to the hilt into an innocent lamb bleating for mercy ; but he 
must suppress his feelings, knowing that the operation affords 
such intense joy and pleasure to those economic gourmands 
whose teeth are watering in expectancy of the delicious 
repast. It pains him to see the wild hunters, born and 
educated in a civilised country, chase the bleeding stag 
behind the thicket where it oozes its last gush of innocent 
blood. It pains him to see the " birds of sweet melody " and 
the birds which prey on the enemies of vegetation ruthlessly 
slaughtered that their plumage may adorn the head-gear of 
the wives and daughters of our udsemonian philosophers. 
Are all these passions to be despised in order that the greatest 
happiness may flow to the darling souls of the greatest num- 
ber] Must misery and wretchedness abound that we may 
glut our senses with the joys of our opulence 1 Yes; and it 


is the imperative duty of the State to see that the greatest 
number enjoy the keenest intensity of happiness. 

We have now seen, briefly though pointedly, the failure of 
abstract methods in the solution of the social problem, and 
the necessity for a new basis of inquiry. We have seen the 
growing divergences in human thoughts and sympathies; 
and, in the attainment of unity and harmony, there is only 
one alternative, namely, the scientific method. There can be 
no compromise. 

Having now completed the analytical chapters, or PART I., 
of this work, it is now in order to proceed synthetically 
in the following pages and develop scientific institutions 
in sympathy with the basis already laid down. We have 
seen that, in their ultimate analysis, all social problems 
are a land question, and that scientific titles must be based 
on the area of land which the individual draws on 4**> 
for his support. This basis may be quite theoretic that is, 
we may conceive the parcel of land as being located in one 
spot, and measured by the quantity of its products, but this 
does not interfere with the right of the individual to exchange 
the products of his parcel for those of other parcels, or with 
his right to permit other individuals to work his plot under 
conditions which are mutually satisfactory. In this manner 
the individual who does not work his plot must always 
receive the products or their equivalent, and can therefore 
never be reduced to a condition of want. Exchanging the 
products of one plot for those of another does not interfere 
with the practicability of reducing the products to their 
equivalents in land areas, and the area of land which a person 
draws on for his maintenance can be calculated with equal 
facility. For example, land in the United Kingdom yields 37 
bushels of oats per acre, but in more favourable countries for 
the growth of this cereal the yield is about 60 bushels per acre, 
so that by an exchange of commodities the person who con- 
sumes large quantities of oatmeal will gain an advantage if he 
can make suitable trade arrangements. This is equivalent 
to the exchange of a portion of one plot of land for that of 
another, and trade will be forced into natural channels. There 
can be trade without economicism, and without any attempts 


to make it the basis of national prosperity. The question to 
be developed in the following pages is how to parcel off these 
plots in such a manner that the individuals will have a suffi- 
ciency to suit their varying requirements. Each individual 
now having a sufficiency of the good things of this world for 
the maintenance of himself and his family, the question may 
arise how and where he is to get the products to be hoarded 
up for his " heirs and assigns for ever." The answer is 
simple. If the country is fully populated, there can be no 
other plots which can be utilised for such a purpose ; and, 
above all, there can be no inducement for him, in case of 
under-population, to work on plots which belong to succeed- 
ing generations, for, all monopoly being destroyed, each indi- 
vidual in every generation has equal opportunities for access 
to his plot of land. Besides, this is the only method for 
attaining an equal distribution of property, and for giving 
each individual equal opportunities for exercising his func- 
tions. The quantity of labour must therefore be regulated 
by that required to work a plot of land, or its equivalent in 
other occupations ; but it does not follow from this that there 
is no other work to be performed : what I mean is, that the 
plot forms the basis of labour, and extra labour can be per- 
formed without wasting plots. With reference to the pro- 
ducts of the mines, it is only necessary to establish some 
ratio between them and the plots of land. This, then, forms 
the foundation-stone of scientific economics, and all institu- 
tions must be in sympathy therewith. 

In perusing the following part of this work, two precau- 
tions are necessary, (i.) Should it be found that the Scien- 
tific State has an Individualistic or a Socialistic bias, which 
forms I have condemned, it must not be forgotten that I am 
operating in quite a different category. It makes a world of 
difference whether agriculture, manufacture, and trade are 
made subservient to the welfare of mankind, or whether 
our race is to be sacrificed on the altar of these industries. 
These are two different categories the concrete and the 
abstract. (2.) Any proposed changes must be evolutionary, 
not revolutionary, for no scientific methods can be revolu- 
tionary. A scientific system must grow; it cannot be 


made : the time required varies with the intensity of the 
change and the nature of the circumstances, just as the 
momentum is the product of the velocity by the mass. I 
make this observation here in order to evade unnecessary 




GRANTED that science can present no direct proof of the 
origin of our planet, or of the material universe, yet a know- 
ledge of the development of phenomena is sufficient for our 
purposes, and the hypotheses which are logically connected 
with the results of scientific investigation tend to the attain- 
ment of mental harmony. In the preceding pages, I have 
acknowledged the existence of matter and force, which 
dualism will be discussed in a later chapter, and we may 
take our starting-point from the hypothesis that our planet 
was originally a nebular mist, although any disproof thereof 
will not affect our inquiry. It is only necessary to go back 
to the pre-organic condition of our world, whence I hope to 
be able to evolve scientific wealth and destiny the material 
and the moral. 

Apart from the scientific method of thinking, as we cannot 
conceive of space being walled in, we must regard it as being 
illimitable, and not being able to conceive or find an absolute 
vacuum, space must be charged with matter, and force being 
inseparable therefrom, matter and force l are illimitable, inde- 
structible, and eternal. 

Force manifests itself in the forms of heat, light, electricity, 
magnetism, chemical affinity, and motion, any one thereof 
being convertible into any other, but no destruction can, 
occur. All forces may be derived from motion, and may be 
actual or potential. 

1 It would seem to be just as correct to say that space is charged with 
force, matter being inseparable therefrom ; but science takes matter as 
the basis of force, the force basis being the abstract method, which has led 
to all the fallacies which I have exposed. My method is to move from 
the abstract to the concrete category, making the structure the basis of 
the function. 



Our primordial mist having been consolidated by slow- 
gradations, let us carry our minds back into the azoic age of 
geology, before the appearance of vegetable or animal life 
upon our planet, and we behold matter in the forms of water 
and igneous rocks, with the various mechanical forces which 
act in and upon them. We behold huge glaciers, charged 
with rocky fragments, moving down to the lower levels and 
grinding the mountains into powder. We behold the streams 
pulverising their banks and beds, carrying the resulting debris 
to the bottom of the ocean, or depositing it upon inundated 
plains. We behold the rain descend, forming streams and 
streamlets, and we behold the self-same water again ascend 
in vaporous condition, forming clouds, and again descending 
in the shapes of snow, ice, or rain, the glaciers again being 
fed all due to the heat of the sun. Even the soil, produced 
in this manner, is again converted into rock under the influ- 
ence of heat, pressure, and other forces, and thus we find all 
nature repeating itself from clouds to ocean, and ocean to 
clouds ; from rock to soil, and soil to rock all in endless 

Can we here gain any conception of wealth or destiny? 
Certainly we can, however crude it may be. It is the destiny 
of the sun, so far as it affects our planet, to produce these 
changes ; it is the destiny of the glaciers to make soil, and 
it is the destiny of the soil to be turned into rock ; it is the 
destiny of the water to form clouds, and so on each cycle of 
change appearing to aggregate no change and neither matter 
nor force is produced or annihilated. All these changes are 
wealth produced by the sun ; the commodity of wealth which 
the glacier produces is called soil, that which pressure pro- 
duces is called rock, &c. If force demands wages for exerting 
itself upon matter, then matter must have an equal amount 
of interest for lending itself to force. 

Passing now over myriads of ages into the geological era 
of organic life and for the logic of our inquiry it makes no 
difference whether plants and animals had a simultaneous 
origin or not we enter into a more complex stage of wealth 
and destiny. The soil now produces the plant ; the plant 
dies and moulders into soil, and the soil returns to rock. It 


is the moral destiny of the plant to live and breathe and 
die, first reproducing its kind. The vegetable kingdom itself 
is the product of those ever-changing forces which gave origin 
to the various commodities in the pre-organic world : exist- 
ence and fatality are alike the lot of organic and inorganic 
nature. It is now the manifest destiny of inorganic matter 
and forces to subserve inorganic life. Before the existence of 
the plant, it was the destiny of the inorganic world to bring 
about such changes as gave birth to organic forms, just as it 
was the destiny of vegetable nature to bring about conditions 
favourable to animal life. The vegetable is now the wealth 
produced directly by the mineral, and the latter has no more 
claims for compensation than the former has for the loan of 
its vitality. 

All matter and force which tend to produce plant life are 
wealth-producing agencies. Of the various species of plants, 
each must be adapted to the environments under which it 
exists, and the original form of life must have been in har- 
mony with the conditions which gave it being, which circum- 
stances are essential to its existence. In other language, 
organic life must obey the law of its being and development. 
This is the scientific method, whereas in the abstract con- 
ception it is the function of organic life to change this law 
that is, science is subjective, while abstraction is objective. 
Chemistry favours objectivity, and biology favours subjec- 
tivity. By the subjective basis, the changes which organic 
life undergoes follow universal laws, whereas by the objec- 
tive basis these laws are subservient to the organic changes. 
Subjectively, organic life is enabled to exercise objective 
sovereignty over all forms of life whose obedience to the 
laws of their development is less pronounced : objectively, 
this order is reversed. This law of obedience not only applies 
to the plant as a whole, but also to each tissue of its structure, 
so that one tissue cannot perform the functions of another, 
except through such slow gradations as may be brought about 
in sympathy with and obedience to the law of development. 

Let us now pass on to the animal kingdom the ages of 
the molluscs, fishes, mammals meanwhile omitting man from 
our inquiry. It is impossible to draw a sharp line of demarca- 


tion between plants and animals, there being so many char- 
acteristics in common, but, regarding the most distinctive 
feature to be sense, we now find matter and force occupied 
in the production of sense commodities, for which previous 
conditions were destined to prepare the way, and no change 
appears in the law of development. The sense function 
is inseparable from the structure, the latter now, in the 
scientific method, to be taken as the basis of measurement. 
The seat of sense is nerve tissue, before or after the formation 
of this structure, but this tissue, again, requires other struc- 
tures for its base. The law of development of an organ or 
structure, which has already been pointed out, consists in the 
exercise of its natural function, and the morality is insepar- 
able from the fulfilment of destiny. This law applies to all 
organic life. The destiny of the animal is to live and breathe 
and perish; and its bones are to produce other animals 
endowed with greater powers of sense. The plant, finding 
its food constantly manufactured beneath its feet by chemical 
agencies, requires neither intelligence nor storing respositories, 
while the animal, having to seek its food, requires both as 
a condition of its existence; and the intelligence, which is 
referred to the same structure as sensation, varies with the 
methods of procuring the means of subsistence. The fox, for 
example, has not developed his cunning because he is a 
carnivorous animal, but because his existence depends upon 
his success in developing this faculty or, rather, the nature 
of his method in procuring the means of subsistence forces 
him to exercise his characteristic faculty. If the conditions 
demanded greater cunning for the procuring of grass than 
the capturing of the fowl, the sheep would be more cunning 
than the fox ; otherwise it would cease to exist. 

In order to understand what is meant by the law of evolu- 
tion, so ably expounded by Darwin and now supported by all 
biologists of repute, let us here take a glimpse at its classi- 
fication, namely : i. Physical environments. 2. Increased use 
or disuse of organs due to change of environment. 3. Natural 
selection. 4. Sexual selection. 

When an animal changes its surroundings, as living under 
different temperatures, procuring different foods by different 


methods, &c., changes of structures and functions are the 
natural sequences, which changes are proportionate to the 
variations in the environments and the period of time 
elapsed; and the modifications, together with the innate 
predisposition to exercise the most highly developed struc- 
tures, are ultimately inherited by the offspring. Sufficient 
time and change of environment being given, there can be 
no limit to the modifications of structures and corresponding 
functions, so that an animal may easily evolve into what the 
old school of biologists call a different family or species, and 
if it came again into contact with the original stock, which 
either underwent no change of environments, or developed 
under essentially different environments, cross-breeding would 
become impossible. Geology has proved the great antiquity 
of our planet, so that these two sciences, geology and biology, 
harmonise so far as the transmutation of the species is con- 
cerned. Fossil remains prove that forms once existed which 
are now extinct; and the disappearance of intermediate 
species causes still greater variations in plants and animals. 
Under these changes, and through the influence of natural 
and sexual selection which also cause modifications, the fittest 
survives in the struggle for existence : and the tendency of 
all organic forms to multiply beyond the means of subsistence 
intensifies this struggle. This dualism of pleasure and pain, 
namely, the over-production of offspring in relation to the 
means of subsistence, is the basis of development and per- 
petuity in all organic life. This law of nature is important 
as representing the difference between the scientific and the 
abstract method. In the latter, it is assumed, without proof, 
that our planet and every species therein contained is a 
special creation : it starts with the idea and never gets beyond 
that limit, while science reverses this order, starting with 
the concrete and climbing u"p. Abstraction commences with 
the Deity; science ends with Him. It is not, therefore, 
surprising to find a clashing between the two methods in all 
the problems of life. All attempts to complete a structure by 
commencing with the roof must prove a failure. 

It is now, I hope, made plain what is meant by natural 
law, so far as it pertains specially to this inquiry. All 


organic life must do one of two things : (i) obey the law of its 
being and development, or (2) give place to forms which do. 
The transmutation of plant into animal life may be essentially 
characterised as the evolution of sensibility, and of simple 
into more complex structures and functions. All organs 
are developed by exercise in such movements as enable the 
animal to obtain its subsistence, and all modifications take 
place by tardy gradations and in conformity with fixed laws. 
The conditions of existence are twofold : (i) the subjective 
impulse through which the offspring is begotten and pre- 
served, developing into an incentive for the preservation of 
the whole species ; and (2) the objective impulse to perform 
such actions and thus developing such structures and 
functions as are requisite for the maintenance of the animal 
and its young. Were any of these conditions wanting, there 
would be no animal life; and the keener the struggle for 
existence, the greater becomes the necessity to render 
obedience to these laws or, the more these laws are obeyed, 
the keener becomes the struggle for existence. Subjectivity 
thus forms the basis of objectivity ; for the impulse to beget 
and preserve takes precedence, just as the sensation of hunger 
must exist before exertions are made to appease the appetite. 
The feature of our planet up to this stage is that there are 
no dualisms all is in harmony and there is only one 
phenomenon, namely, nature. The dualism of pleasure and 
pain, which I have pointed out, and which I shall hereafter 
discuss, is not a dualism in any sense in which the word is 
now understood. Passing now on to the era of man, we are 
beset with the first and greatest of all dualisms man and 
nature. Before this great epoch there was neither good nor 
evil in the world, and no supernatural agencies as distinct 
from the natural. For the sake of clearness it will be neces- 
sary for me to call everything natural which was created up 
to the evening of the sixth day, or before the creation of man, 
for man appears to be the only creature endowed with super- 
natural gifts, which, presumably, is the force which gives him 
dominion over the beasts, and enables him to subdue them. 
The difficulty in the way of understanding this plan of creation 
is that man's body is a mass of corruption is earthy and 


earthly while a certain portion of his functional or non- 
functional parts belongs to the supernatural category that 
is, his body is natural and his spirit supernatural. All matter 
and force are therefore natural, except a certain entity called 
our spiritual nature. Expressed in other language, man is, 
unmistakably, the only animal who is permitted to evade the 
laws of nature, which all the brutes are obliged to obey. If this 
is not so, then to what natural laws is he obliged to render obe- 
dience 1 Which of them is he permitted to escape with impu- 
nity ? Through this impregnation with supernatural power, he is 
endowed with an innate sense of good and evil, apprehended 
through divine revelation, or through obedience to the super- 
natural. Man is thus partly from above and partly from below, 
while all the beasts are exclusively from below. The solution of 
this dualism is of the weightiest concern in the solution of the 
social problem, which pertains to our moral and material wants, 
and if our spiritual needs form the basis, the longer the question 
remains unsolved the better. The reason why this dualism is 
solving itself is because economic man regards his material wants 
as the basis of his existence at least his actions impel him in 
this direction, although his theories may run counter therewith 
and so long as he devotes his energies to the gratification of 
his spiritual wants, he must certainly neglect his material neces- 
sities. All depends upon which he takes as the basis of his 
existence. He may get the one or the other, but he cannot 
get both. If he prefers the material, he must favour science ; 
if he prefers the spiritual, he must favour abstraction. Econo- 
micism is conducive to our spiritual well-being; science to our 
material and moral. The material and the moral cannot be 
separated, and if morality consists in obedience to the laws of 
our being and development, the question arises, What further 
acts of morality does God demand 1 ? What actions inconsis- 
tent with these laws does He require us to perform 1 What 
interest or delight can He take in the physical extinction of 
His race of worshippers ? 

These speculations lead to constantly diverging trains of 
thought ; for every new religion, or philosophy, is a tendency 
in this direction without destroying the older forms, ancient 
shapes of abstract thought being modified rather than de- 


stroyed, and even what is called new is only so in a relative 
sense. In sympathy with the scientific method of inquiry, we 
must proceed by observation, comparison, and analysis, not 
taking it for granted that man possesses any instincts which 
differ from those of the brute simply because our ideas lead us 
into this belief. The structural and consequent functional 
analogies between man and the lower animals have already 
been pointed out, and if there can be found anything funda- 
mentally different in the moral or intellectual natures of man 
and the ^brute, there will be strong presumptive evidence in 
favour of the existence of a spiritual nature, but it would 
not yet be logical to conclude that this spirituality is to be 
attached to man. Science can establish no other basis of 
superiority than that of the powers of perpetuity in any 
species of plant or animal. If the brute can perpetuate and 
develop itself by virtue of its own innate instincts, and if 
man, by virtue of his education, can learn how to extinguish 
himself, it seems rational to infer that spirituality pertains to 
the brute, not to man. By the abstract method of thinking, 
however, structural extinction seems to favour spiritual superi- 
ority, whereas the scientist can see no conflict between struc- 
tural, functional, and spiritual powers of perpetuity. The 
essence of perpetuity reposes in obedience to the laws of being 
and development : the stricter the obedience, the greater the 
powers of perpetuity. Comparative anatomists have pointed 
out that both absolutely and relatively, with insignificant 
exceptions, man's brain is heavier than that of any of the 
lower animals. In examining the brain, or any other tissue, 
two important factors must be considered : (i) the mass, and 
(2) the texture or quality. It does not follow that the maxi- 
mum of force resides either in mass or texture separately, but 
in an harmonious combination of both, coupled with the loca- 
tion of the organ. Krahmer says : " The intelligence of the 
brute manifests itself in the same way as that of man ; no 
difference between instinct and reason exists except in degree." 
Another famous researcher, Czolbe, says : " The impression 
that animals are incapable of forming ideas, opinions, and 
inferences is contradictory to the teachings of human ex- 
perience." The evidence of multitudes of investigators in 


this field of inquiry can be educed to disprove numerous 
contradictory theories which have been advanced. The lower 
animals build houses, caves, nests, bridges, dams, &c. They 
hold deliberative assemblies, processes of criminal procedure, 
engage in migratory expeditions, and have languages which 
we cannot understand ; they remember past events, and all 
their knowledge, like man's, is derived from hereditary pre- 
disposition and direct experience. Their sounds, signs, and 
gestures surpass those of many human tribes, and some of 
their senses are more acute than those of the most civilised of 
the human family. They have their feelings of love, hate, and 
revenge. It is by reflection rather than instinct that the fox, 
for example, provides methods of escape from his hiding-place, 
and steals fowls when he is least likely to be watched. It 
is experience that makes the older animals wiser than the 
younger. Crows and sparrows which are habitually shot at 
do not dread people without guns. The revengeful fights 
between swallows and sparrows are well known to ordinary 
observers, and the political and social communities of ants 
and bees are universally recognised facts. Ants, like human 
beings, wage war, fight battles, make expeditions, bring home 
slaves, and train them for their service, keep "cows" in 
stables, and practise agriculture. Who has not heard the 
marvellous docility of the elephant 1 The extraordinary saga- 
city of the ape, superior to that of some tribes of men, has 
been more than superficially investigated. Many gregarious 
animals choose leaders and obey their commands. Nor has 
development in the languages of the lower animals been 
neglected. Some human tribes, who indicate their feelings 
and sentiments by sounds, do so less perfectly than some 
so-called brutes. In man the sexual and self-preservative 
instincts, as well as those of the maternal love, is purely of 
the brute kind. The mother ape leads her young to water 
and washes its face, despite its crying, and wounds are washed 
out with water. When in distress the ape weeps like a human 
being, and in a manner which is very piteous and affecting. 
Many of the ape tribes construct huts or roofs, and sleep in a 
sort of bed. In battle they defend themselves with their fists 
and with long sticks, and in burying their dead they cover the 


bodies with leaves in a secluded place. African monkeys 
have been known to die of grief over the loss of their young. 
Emotions, entirely human in their manifestations, such as 
pleasure, pain, misery, have also been observed in the lower 
animals, and terror with them causes the muscles to tremble, 
the heart to palpitate, and the hair to stand on end. Courage, 
timidity, good and bad temper, rage, jealousy, desire for praise, 
&c., are also manifested. There are, moreover, exhibitions of 
curiosity and wonder, and the memory of some animals is sur- 
prising. Darwin's dog, for example, recognised him after an 
absence of five years. The powers of imagination are mani- 
fested in animals when they are dreaming, and the powers of 
reason are aptly illustrated by the way in which birds readily 
learn to avoid self-destruction by flying against telegraph- 
wires. The highest order of the ape cracks nuts with stones, 
and Abyssinian baboons attack their foes by rolling down 
stones upon them from the mountain-tops. 

But all these actions, according to abstract theories, are 
quite natural, while man, by virtue of his religion, his edu- 
cation, and his civilisation, is a supernatural being. Is a 
civilisation which is doomed to extinction more supernatural 
than a barbarism which is destined to be perpetuated ? A scien- 
tific civilisation, although, as we shall see, far removed from 
barbarism, can only be measured by its powers of perpetuity, 
and not by its liability to decay and to final extinction. 

With all the evidence educed from this wide field of inquiry, 
the scientist is impelled to the conclusion that there is only 
one phenomenon nature ; and this is the only manner in 
which the dualism can be solved. There is no missing link 
between man and the lower animals ; and, despite all his 
attempts to evolve into a civilised, an educated, an economic, 
a carnivorous, a cooking animal, and into a prince of scaven- 
gers, he has acquired no new instinct or faculty which removes 
him from the brutes. Admitting his higher capacities for 
evolving into higher stages of perfection, and for developing 
greater powers of perpetuity, yet his faculties have been em- 
ployed in carving out a period of retrogression in his history. 
I will admit, however, that in the great epoch of universal 
evolution it may be marked as a period of progression ; for I 


still entertain the hope that the written history of the past 
three thousand years, as well as that impressed upon the far 
more ancient geological pages of our earth, will be the means of 
enabling us to escape many a disaster in the epochs yet to be. 
"When we begin to recognise nature in her process of evolu- 
tion, our knowledge of her beginning and her end becomes 
logical sequences. Our efforts have been expended in vain 
attempts to force the unfittest of organic forms to survive, 
namely, those which have offered the greatest resistance to 
the laws of their development. The deeds of our ancestors 
are but stepping-stones to higher achievements. 

Having thus reduced all conditions affecting our inquiry to 
one phenomenon, the way is paved for the evolution of wealth 
and morality. In the pre-organic period of our planet, all 
those materials and forces were wealth, which served to bring 
about those conditions favouring plant life ; and it was equally 
the destiny of the plant to subserve those conditions which 
brought animal life into being. 1 Animal life is distinctively 
characterised by sensation (subjective) and intelligence (objec- 
tive), and these are the properties of nerve tissue, although 
these essences have a prior and an incipient existence in 
the blood. Age is a process of ossification a transmutation 
from the organic to the inorganic. Wealth may therefore 
be defined as consisting of those materials and forces which 
conduce to the greatest quantity and highest quality of nerve 
tissue. In this definition no classification of animals is neces- 
sary, although I use the word man to signify the highest type 
of sensation and intelligence. Man's destiny is involved in 
the exercise of his structures and functions in obedience to the 
laws of his being and development. Wealth therefore consists 
of those materials and forces which are conducive to the ful- 
filment of man's destiny. In the widest sense of the word, 
wealth embraces man himself, for his own material and force 
are also exercised in promoting his development and con- 
sequent destiny. 

1 I have frequently used the expression "being and development," 
although, in reality, the word development expresses all that can be under- 
stood. A new form brought into being is merely the effect of prior 
developments. Nothing is actually created, although the word creation 
has a useful meaning. 



HAVING shown that all animals, including all their structures 
and functions, depend upon the soil for their being and sub- 
sistence and this statement is directly or indirectly true, so 
that it makes no difference whether the animal is carnivorous, 
omnivorous, or herbivorous it may be justly anticipated that 
land plays an important part in the solution of the social 
problem. Although land is the basis of the plant, yet this 
fact does not interfere with the conclusion I have arrived at, 
namely, that physical are subject to vital laws. Land is the 
basis of production, but vitality is the basis of perpetuity of 
production. The confusion of vital with mechanical laws 
the organic with the inorganic is the existing curse of 
science. This question is the chief corner-stone in our 
social structure, and no solution of the social problem can 
be made until economic forces are so changed that they can 
be made conformable with biological laws. I confine my 
remarks to land because those other equally important com- 
modities, such as light and air, have not yet been monopo- 
lised, although they form a component part of scientific 
wealth. In its widest sense, land embraces all things which 
are conducive to the fulfilment of human destiny; in more 
restricted significations, it means the soil, and all its products 
all monopolised commodities. The context will be a suffi- 
cient index to the sense. The land question is the parent of 
existing social conditions, and it is only through the same 
basis that a solution is possible. Land makes our bodies 
and sustains them : to deny us a title to land is to deny us 
the right to live except upon charity. The heroes of our 
race are not those who delight to pawn their lives in chari- 



table institutions. The right to land destroys the monopoly 
of our very souls. Must justice be denied that charity may 
abound ? God forbid ! So soon as we can assert and main- 
tain the right to live, we destroy all monopoly and become 
free men. Then "liberty, equality, and fraternity " will reign 
supreme. Never has there existed a greater truth than that 
uttered by the anarchist when he maintains that political 
institutions only exist for the enforcement of monopoly. To 
vindicate the right to live is to transmute all economic rights 
into a figment, for it empowers us to draw on the property of 
others for our subsistence, or gives us the privilege to exert 
our labour upon such property ; but the same law of right to 
live gives us equal title to death when the population grows 
out of ratio to the area of land required for its support. If 
this is not true, then the right of might must prevail. 

The object of this chapter is to show the condition in 
which agriculture would now be found had scientific methods 
always prevailed. The drawing of the contrast between 
scientific and economic agriculture is necessary to an intelli- 
gent understanding of the subject, and to the devising of an 
efficient remedy. 

Mankind has so gradually evolved into the present state of 
civilisation that no sharp line can be drawn between the man 
and the brute stages of our existence. The rapid decay of 
Christianity as a vital force or, which is the same thing, 
the growing spirit of scientific inquiry has given a great 
impetus to this inquiry, and there are many able investigators 
in the field ; notably, Professor Dr. Biichner l and Abel Hove- 
lacque, 2 Sir Charles Lyell, Dr. Karl Mayer, and other dis- 
tinguished geologists have also shed much light upon the an- 
tiquity and habits of pre-historic man, while the reports of 
travellers amongst existing tribes have enabled us to draw 
useful comparisons. Dr. Mayer estimates the period which 
has elapsed from the middle of the Tertiary to the present 

1 Thatsachen und Theorien aus dem naturwissenschaftlichen Lt-ben 
der Gegenwart, published by Allgemeiner Verein fiir Deutche Literatur, 
Berlin, 1887. 

' 2 Lzs debuts de Vhurmnitt : L'homme primitif con'.emporaire. Paris, 



time to be at least 250,000 years, which corresponds to the 
antiquity of man that is, regarding us as being designated 
as man at that period in which our race contracted rude forms 
of our present habits, such as religion, family, trade. Historical 
man only dates back about three thousand years. During that 
remote pre-historic period, a time existed when, like many 
existing savages, man did not cover his nakedness, and had 
no shame to be hidden. Covering our bodies did not take its 
origin in any feeling of shame, but as a protection from weather 
and injury, and as our shame parts were the tenderest or most 
exposed, they were the first which received protection. In 
order to obtain security from the stings of insects, the whole 
body was sometimes covered, or rather rubbed, with obnoxi- 
ously swelling compounds, which discoloured the skin. Men 
lived in caves, or slept under leaves, and their condition at 
this period was not far removed from that of the apes ; the 
latter, however, were more arboreal in their habits, their feet 
being more prehensile, so that they constructed kinds of nests 
on the trees. Much evidence has been advanced to prove 
that primitive man was an habitual vegetarian ; but, owing 
probably to over-population, he was driven into scavengery, 
and ate fish, turtles, lizards, insects, carrion, <fcc., as well as 
vegetable foods. He even ate human flesh, and when the 
means of subsistence grew scanty, children were slaughtered 
for food, and old people were either killed or permitted to 
die of starvation, if not also consumed. The superfluous 
bodies of the dead were either buried or left lying in the 
open air. The remedy for over-population by means of war 
was not probably understood to any appreciable extent. 
Over-population must have been genuine, for there was no 
land monopoly in those days. Much charity could not have 
been expected, for it was impossible to accumulate property, 
there being no institutions to defend it. There was no idea 
of God or immortality, but simply a belief in good and bad 
spirits, and speech was very rudimentary. That state of fear, 
a species of which is possessed by some lower animals, de- 
veloped into a sort of religion, and the devouring of human 
flesh became incorporated with the religious ceremonies. 
These religious characteristics adhere to some existing tribes. 


The imagination, or idealisation of matter, developed a crude 
religion, and this, our original sin, is the source of those 
abstract ideas which form the basis of our civilisations. The 
scavenger life which our remote ancestors were obliged to 
follow detrimentally affected their moral qualities, and gave 
birth to physical degeneracy, and the development of the 
imagination was an obstacle in the way of observing the laws 
of nature. They did not adopt natural methods in their 
attempts to evolve into carnivorous animals ; hence the 
failure. Later on came the discovery of fire and cookery, 
by means of which the disagreeable flavours of our unnatural 
foods were destroyed, which aggravated their degradation, 
and the development of this practice has resulted in the 
cookery of foods which, uncooked, possess the most delicious 
flavours. This illustrates the immoral tendency adhering to 
the development of all abstract conceptions, for the develop- 
ment of all bad systems can only result in making them worse. 
By the invention of cookery, a larger number of unnatural 
foods could be utilised for consumption, and the vilest of filth 
in the animal world could be made sufficiently palatable for 
consumption. The pressure of population against the means 
of subsistence constantly intensified this mischief, and no 
remedy has yet been discovered. They then domesticated 
some species of the lower animals, using their carcasses for 
food ; and, when property became more secure, they branched 
out as agriculturists and monopolists. When land became 
scarce and valuable, it was monopolised by the priests, and 
the masses became slaves, which necessitated a strong govern- 
ment to protect the rights of property. In those days the 
priest was king and general, and the form of government was 
a theocracy, the right to rule and to monopolise being divine. 
These conditions are undergoing further development at the 
present day ; and, by way of contrast, let us now inquire what 
the condition of our ancestors would have been if they de- 
veloped the scientific, instead of the abstract, parts of their 

Even at the present day, the theory prevails that, in new 
countries, the pioneers must have axes to hew down the 
forests, and implements and animals to cultivate the land. 


This must be so, for it is the experience of practical farmers ; 
and yet let us consider what the practice of thousands of 
years has taught us, and the same truths may be verified by 
the experience of a single generation of men. The removal 
of the forests has caused irregular rainfalls alternating floods 
and droughts the drying up of springs and rivulets, the 
development of insects injurious to vegetation, the loss of 
vitality in our agricultural plants, the scarcity of timber for 
domestic purposes, for the preservation of health, and for the 
protection of the country and of vegetation from fierce blasts, 
and many other calamities might be enumerated. 

Economic practices, on the other hand, teach us that there 
is no money in trees so long as they are permitted to remain 
abundant that they must be made scarce in order to increase 
the individual and the national wealth and that their place 
must be occupied by domestic animals, because they bring 
money. There must be some solution of the dualism of scien- 
tific and economic practice. Both forms are the experiences 
of men, and why should the economic be taken as the basis 
of the scientific ? Why should the practice of a generation 
or two of men be weightier than that of scores of generations 1 
One of the most cogent reasons is simple, namely, that the 
greater experience, which includes the less, is profaned by the 
unconsecrated name of science, through which reason is made 
the basis of faith. In the abstract category, reason is of none 
effect; save in so far as it rests on the foundation of our cre- 
dulity. It is desirable to bear this dualism in mind, for my 
proposed institutions will be a disastrous failure unless they 
bring the greater and the lesser experiences into harmony. 

Without denying that our remote ancestors were under the 
stern necessity of acting as they did, or that it is imperative 
for our race to undergo a process of abstract evolution, yet it 
remains to be observed that their methods were unscientific. 
Had their minds been drawn to observe nature, instead of 
indulging in flights of imagination and engaging in super- 
stitious ceremonies, their methods of obtaining the means of 
subsistence would have been reversed. At this remote period 
agricultural plants and animals had to struggle for existence 
under the same law as the tribes which subsisted on them ; 


and the development of domestication and civilisation has 
consisted in a gradual removal of this struggle. The sciences 
of the present day are devoted to the devising of methods for 
the further removal of organic life from the law of its de- 
velopment, and this tendency is specially observable in our 
agricultural practices. Plants are fed with soluble fertilisers, 
animals with easily digested foods, and tillage operations are 
practised for the purpose of enabling atmospheric influences 
to perform work which the roots of the plant ought to do, 
such as the attacking of insoluble compounds in the soil. 
Not only so, but domesticated life is protected from all kinds 
of exposure, and receives the most careful attention and 
cherishing. We have seen that labour applied to articles of 
food tended to make them less valuable ; we now also see 
that labour applied to land makes the soil, in the long-run, 
less productive, and it consequently also possesses less scientific 
value. However, labour applied to land increases the econo- 
mic value in two ways: (i) by making the fertility scarce, 
and (2) by a temporary abundance of the products of the 
soil, due to labour, and especially improvements in machinery, 
an inflation of human desire is generated. Scientific wealth 
thus suffers loss from two sources: (i) decrease of fertility, 
and (2) decrease of vitality. With all these practical ex- 
periences, drawn from many centuries of observation and 
research, we can now easily see the mistakes which were 
made by our remote ancestors. Had they operated scienti- 
fically, they could have removed whole forests without the 
use of any instrument, and they would have required no 
implements or working animals for tillage purposes. Having 
observed that they were not carnivorous, they would not have 
brought any animals under domestication. There must have 
been fruit and nut trees ; and if the forest contained other 
trees whose fruits were not serviceable as food, their plan 
would have been the rearing of larger numbers of fruit and 
nut bearing trees by planting young shoots in localities less 
favourable for their growth than was their natural home, by 
which method a few of the strongest saplings would survive, 
and would ultimately displace the native trees of the forest. 
This tendency could have been furthered by destroying the 


vitality of the unserviceable trees through removal of the 
leaves and lighter branches ; and in the performance of this 
work it must not be forgotten that arboreal man had five 
or six times the strength of civilised man. This is nature's 
method of converting forests into fruit gardens, and our an- 
cestors need have performed no more labour than the birds 
do at the present day when weed-seeds are conveyed to 
remote districts, exterminating not only agricultural plants, 
but also varieties of weeds whose vitality has been lessened 
by subjection to agricultural operations. The same process 
should have been followed with reference to cereals or other 
articles of food, and by the same law they could have been so 
hardened in vitality as to exterminate the grasses, weeds, and 
other plants which were not used for human consumption. 

Thus we find that labour has been the curse of our race, in- 
stead of a blessing, and any party who will succeed in found- 
ing new institutions on the basis of the aristocracy of labour 
will speedily suffer the consequences of their folly. It may 
be urged, however, that the scientific process is too slow, that 
the pressure of population against the means of subsistence 
necessitated the adoption of artificial agriculture, and that 
the work could have been more easily performed by the use 
of implements. The restriction of population will be discussed 
in a later chapter, but with reference to labour, it need only 
be said here that man himself would soon become extinct 
unless he had some method of exercising his structures and 
functions, and these exercises must have some relation to the 
methods for procuring the means of subsistence. Natural 
exercise, which differs very widely from our conceptions of 
labour, consists in gathering the fruits of the earth, not in 
producing them, but from this it does not follow that exercise 
should be confined within this limit. I confine my observa- 
tions here to agricultural exercises, for, as we have seen, agri- 
culture forms the basis of scientific institutions. It is now 
easy to understand how, under scientific institutions, the idea 
of property could never have originated. Why, even at the 
present day, a berry-picking excursion is regarded as an 
amusement, and so long as there are plenty berries for all, 
the iron hand of monopoly is fettered : indeed, the idea of 


such a monster could never have entered our wildest imagina- 
tion. Another important deduction from our premises is, that 
the idea of trade could never have originated so far as the 
means of subsistence are concerned ; for instead of people 
going after their food, the food would have come to them. 
Every family would have their necessaries growing at their 
own door. During this long period of 250,000 years, the 
tropical plants could have been made to flourish within the 
arctic circle, and vice versa, and thus foreign, as well as local, 
trade could not have had inception, neither as an actuality 
nor as an abstract idea. There could not even have been a 
State for the enforcement of the rights of property or the 
punishment of crime ; and any organisation that would have 
originated could only have been for purposes of co-operation 
in developing the means of subsistence. Here we see more 
plainly than in previous chapters the violence of the scio- 
economic dualism. By the economic method of thinking, it 
is not necessary to save our natural foods ; for man, by virtue 
of his supernatural powers of objectivity, can utilise such 
plants and animals as he finds growing around him, and, 
by cookery and flavouring substances, he can make them 
palatable for people of the highest education and refinement. 
Besides, in the same train of thought, man, as a trading 
animal, can build ships and railways for importing and ex- 
porting foods which are restricted to certain localities, thus 
furnishing respectable employment for people of high social 
standing; and, by cultivating the soil, suitable employment 
for slaves is obtained, thus, by way of contrast, bringing out 
more prominently the virtues of education, wealth, good breed- 
ing, and the charms of civilisation. Moreover, by establishing 
a priesthood to monopolise the means of subsistence, respect- 
able employment is obtained for professional gentlemen, espe- 
cially politicians, and the theories of rights and duties are 
such as are best calculated to sharpen the cunning faculties 
of all who are permitted to walk within the social circle. 

Having seen that man himself is part and parcel of nature, 
and must render obedience to natural laws, it is plain that he 
can only spread by virtue of the same laws which must be 
obeyed in the propagation of plants ; and the lower animals 


can certainly not escape the same forces. The law of develop- 
ment is the same in all the varying forms of the vital world. 
It is extremely probable that man originated in a tropical 
climate, and his movements would, for the most part, have 
been towards colder regions. His ancestors, through millions 
of ages prior to this period, had no conception of clothing, 
and their only sources of heat were food-combustion within 
and the rays of the sun without. In his journeyings pole- 
wards, he was confronted with lower temperatures ; and two 
other elements of warmth were consequently discovered, 
namely, fire and clothing, both of which are unnatural 
and must be consigned to the same category as the art of 
cookery. Clothing tends to destroy the functions of the 
skin in the same way as cooked foods tend to destroy the 
functions of our teeth, jaws, and internal organs, and can 
never take the place of the natural covering of hair with 
which the bodies of our ancestors, as well as those of many 
existing tribes, were blest. The bodies of many civilised 
people would still be densely coated with hair were it 
not partially worn off by the friction of their clothing. If 
clothing had never become fashionable, whether we were 
covered with hair or not, our bodies would now be as capable 
of resisting the cold as our faces. Man may evolve into a 
hairless animal, but into a clothes-wearing animal, never. 
When we consider the importance of the functions which 
the skin has to perform, and how it acts as a barometer of 
our health, we can clearly understand the injury inflicted by 
a deadening of these functions. And yet we are told by 
medical authorities that the wearing of clothes and the eating 
of hot foods are matters of economy in our dietary. Such 
practices may save food, but they waste land and vitality. 
Besides, if the hot foods are cooked, there is no saving even 
from the economic standpoint, for greater quantities must 
then be eaten. The evils arising from clothes-wearing, I 
admit, are to some extent mitigated by frequent bathing, 
which restores the activity of the skin, but this violent 
method, in the absence of the milder air, rain, and sun-baths, 
is often more injurious than beneficial. When we consider 
the subject in all its bearings, we cannot resist the conclusion 


that flesh-eating, clothes-wearing, alcohol-drinking, and food- 
cooking all bear a relation to each other, and the abandonment 
of any one of these practices should naturally be accompanied 
by the abandonment of all. It is a fortunate coincidence that 
civilised man has not evolved into a shame animal, and the 
idea is as much of an abstraction as the fiction that he is an 
economic animal. The wearing of clothes has been the source 
of more immorality and crime than all other habits combined. 
Had our ancestors not moved northward or southward more 
rapidly than they could have accommodated themselves to 
the lower temperatures, the clothes-wearing habit could not 
have originated ; but this statement does not affect the occa- 
sional necessity for wearing certain garments or coverings 
under special circumstances, or in cold climates while the body 
is in a condition of repose. The injury inflicted is through the 
constant wearing of clothing under all temperatures, and a 
movement in the right direction would take place by enjoying 
an air-bath in open space for a few hours daily under more or 
less active exercise according to the temperature. These are 
not merely logical conclusions drawn from the science of de- 
velopment, but they have been amply proved by the practical 
experience of scientific vegetarians, who have felt astonished 
at the intense uneasiness and restlessness of their bodies while 
wearing the ordinary amount of clothing, due to the great 
activity of the skin, when they have confined themselves to 
scientific rations for several months. The desire for vigorous 
exercise or bathing in cold water becomes intense, providing 
the health and vigour have not been appreciably impaired by 
prior excesses, and the force of that electric vitality, which 
has been deadened for many centuries, reappears. 

It must not be inferred from my remarks that there can be 
no difference in the application of methods between plants 
and animals in the struggles for existence, although the law is 
identical in both instances. Man can struggle scientifically 
without being obliged to injure or destroy his fellows, as he is 
now coerced to do, but the methods of attaining this end will 
be developed in the following chapters. We shall find, on the 
contrary, that the law of struggling for existence need not con- 
flict with our highest ideas of human progress and sympathy. 


When plants move from their home to struggle for existence 
in other localities, the weakest must perish ; but with animals, 
none need move except those which have the strength to 
bear more unfavourable conditions. The law which man has 
violated is this, that he has migrated and at the same time 
attempted to carry with him his prior conditions. Instead 
of adapting himself to the climate, he attempts to make the 
climate adapt itself to him. All the grave errors of our an- 
cestors we have developed with loyal fidelity ; and what makes 
this truth all the more revolting is, that we do from choice 
those things which they did from necessity. "We still con- 
sume the most disgusting species of carnivorous animals the 
most loathsome scavengers and they have become dainties 
for the ilite, of civilised society. If our ancestors devoured 
carrion from necessity, we, from choice, devour flesh tainted 
with all manner of diseases. What are we better than 
cannibals, when we consume animals which devour men ? 
What we eat and drink is the best standard of our morality. 
Civilised man has failed to evolve into the king of the sca- 
venger tribes, and there is no sense in carrying the experiment 
any further. If we could relate to our remote ancestors the 
various devices which we have discovered as remedies for 
over-population, they would feel appalled at what we are 
pleased to designate human progress. If we looked at them 
through their own spectacles, we would see that they were 
less barbarous than ourselves. If they could ask us what we 
have to show for the experience of so many centuries, what 
would our answer be ? If they could ask us when we learnt 
to speculate with the souls of unborn generations, where would 
we go to hide our heads in shame ? If man were a carnivorous 
animal, or even an omnivore, I would regard the fact as the 
strongest proof that there is no God, and that the only 
supreme being is the Devil. 



IN previous chapters I mainly made reference to laud in the 
ordinary practical sense of the word, taking average crops as 
the basis of measurement, or leaving the reader to infer that 
all parcels of land have equal fertility and productiveness. It 
is now in order to discuss the scientific aspect, and here the 
same principles are involved as those which 1 have already 
discussed with reference to agricultural plants, namely, the 
chemical constituents, or the chemical analysis of the soil. 
We must ascertain the part which each chemical element or 
compound plays in the production of the plant on the same 
principles by which we have determined the functions of the 
plant compounds in the processes of nutrition ; but in the 
discussion of this question, the laws of vitality do not enter. 
Our foods are only known to the scientist by virtue of their 
protein, fats, carbo-hydrates, and salts, and when he speaks 
of land, he wants to know its capacity to produce these 
nutrients. In this reference land has a wide signification, 
for the carbon is derived from the atmosphere, the nitrogen l 
and salts being the only constituents derived from the 
soil. The nitrogen is derived from the decomposed organic 
matter in the soil, so that vegetable soils are rich in this 
element of fertility, and the salts are derived from the rocky 
fragments which, wi:h the organic matter, constitute land in 
the limited sense of the word, and may be more definitely 

1 Small quantities of the nitrogen, however, are derived indirectly from 
the atmosphere in the forms of nitric acid and ammonia, which descend 
with the rains. With reference to the unsettled question as to what extent 
plants (notably the legumes) take in nitrogen from the atmosphere through 
their leaves, I may add that it is of little importance, the percentages 
being very small. The carbon is derived from the carbonic acid in the 
atmosphere, a poisonous compound which animals exhale, so that animals 
feed plants. 



expressed by the word soil. Roughly speaking, land may be 
divided into clayey, sandy, and vegetable soils, and various 
subdivisions, notably calcareous soils, may be enumerated, all 
of which have considerable scientific value, for these divisions 
affect the mechanical texture and enable us to roughly deter- 
mine the fertility and productive capacity. The salts which 
enter into the composition of the plant are phosphoric acid, 
potash, soda, magnesia, iron, lime, sulphuric acid, chlorine, 
and silica. Sodium chloride (common salt) and silica are, 
however, not absolutely essential for plant growth. These 
mineral compounds are obtained by decomposition of rocks 
through atmospheric action, and the roots of the plants also 
attack the insoluble compounds and digest them. It is im- 
portant here to bear in mind that the agricultural chemist 
makes the same mistake in feeding the plant with soluble 
fertilisers as the orthodox doctor makes when he recommends 
easily digestible foods for animals ; in both cases vitality is 
impaired, it being a natural function of the plant to attack 
insoluble compounds in the same manner as it is natural for 
our vital organs to attack insoluble foods. This process is 
the natural exercise for the organs of plants and animals, 
without which the vitality becomes impaired, and in the 
struggles for existence, the powers of perpetuity being en- 
feebled, other forms of life become fitter to survive. 

As all soils do not possess the same percentages of the con- 
stituents of which they are composed, and as there is a good 
deal of uniformity in the percentages which all plants take up 
for their nourishment, we are confronted with a law of mini- 
mums that is, the productive capacity of the soil is regulated 
by the lowest constituent of fertility, just on the same principle 
as the strength of a chain is measured by the weakest link. 
An excess of the maximum constituents is often more injurious 
to vegetation than beneficial. In applying fertilisers to soils, 
it is only necessary to supply the minimum constituent, pro- 
viding the others have equal degrees of availability for the 
plant. To a limited extent, the same object is attained by a 
rotation of crops, if those plants be selected which are less 
exhaustive on the minimum constituent of fertility. It has 
been ascertained by many thousands of experiments conducted 


during the past half-century by able agricultural scientists, 
that the constituents which are more or less deficient in 
almost all soils are nitrogen, phosphoric acid, or potash, usually 
some one or two of these three. These constituents have 
therefore commercial value in the forms in what are commonly 
known under the name of artificial or chemical fertilisers. 1 
The nitrogen is usually applied in the forms of nitrate of 
soda and sulphate of ammonia ; the phosphorus in the forms of 
bone-dust and phosphate rocks, usually made soluble by chemi- 
cal processes, and the potash is usually supplied in the forms of 
sulphate and chloride of potassium, although wood ashes, which 
contain considerable percentages of potash, are also frequently 
used. The supply of nitrogen is to some extent under the 
control of man, for the removal of forests and tillage operations 
have a strong tendency to dissipate the organic matter in the 
soil, and it can be restored by reversing economic practices in 
agriculture. Potash exists in larger abundance than phos- 
phorus, so that, in the most limited signification, land is 
reduced to phosphorus. We have thus analysed the pure 
gold of scientific wealth ; and, what is also of vital import- 
ance, we also find that all offences against phosphorus are 
scientific treason. Here we have the physical and the moral 
side of our inquiry, which cannot be separated, as we have 
seen in previous chapters. Where are our phosphate-mines ? 
The graves of the untold billions of our race, which are 
consecrated to the shades of our ancestors. The bones of 
animals contain 40 per cent, of phosphoric acid, as well as 
53 to 54 per cent, of lime and small quantities of other ferti- 
lising substances, and yet this loss is trifling compared with 
the waste sustained in the excretions of human beings and 
other domesticated animals. Who can estimate the quantity 
of scientific wealth which is daily rolling down our rivers to 

1 Nitrogen has a higher economic value or price than the other two, 
potash being the least valuable ; but nitrogen is an element, while phos- 

phoric acid (PsOs) is a compound of phosphorus and oxygen, the oxygen 
having no value, and potash is a compound of potassium and oxygen (K 2 O). 
If these were quoted as elements instead of compounds that is, phosphorus 
and potassium instead of phosphoric acid and potash the apparently 
greater value of nitrogren would largely disappear, and there is no reason 
why the market quotations for the compounds, instead of the elements, 
should continue, 


feed the scavengers of the sea ? Such an estimate would be 
a measure of the ill-gotten booty snatched from the battle- 
field in our triumphant victory over posterity. From the 
principles just laid down we obtain another law, namely, that 
the bodies, or even the excrements, of animals may be burnt 
without destruction of scientific wealth, providing the ashes 
be saved, for the organic matter which is dissipated into the 
atmosphere the nitrogenous and the carbonaceous compounds 
are not lost to humanity ; and even if they were, they do not 
form the minimum element of fertility. And yet, forsooth, 
all this scientific waste is an element in the ; production of 
economic wealth ! The legitimate conclusion of this part of 
our inquiry is, that our bodies should be cremated instead of 
festering in our graveyards for the purpose of jeopardising 
our health and furnishing savoury repasts for the Gods. 

Socrates, just before his death, was asked what should be 
done with his body, to which he replied in substance : " My 
body ; why, that is nothing : Socrates will instantly be no 
more in the body, and it makes no difference what becomes 
of the body when the spirit is gone." Had this great philo- 
sopher, however, made the following reply, namely : " Strew 
my pinch of ashes upon the fruit-bearing earth to enquicken 
a greater Socrates than myself: my barren dust in the sarco- 
phagus is endless death" had he made this answer, he would 
have enunciated a doctrine whose scientific truth is not un- 
surpassed by its spiritual loftiness, and he would have handed 
down to posterity the key to all knowledge. This "heathen" 
philosopher, however, was far in advance of our modern 
professors of dogma, for they maintain that it does matter 
what becomes of our bodies : they must occupy festering 
graveyards and receive marbled immortality they must 
exhale pestilence in the nostrils of the living, and be kept 
as reserve brimstone in the hands of his Satanic Majesty for 
the purpose of meting out just rewards to all desecrators of 
the shades of our great ancestors. If the scientist be permitted 
to immortalise the body, he cannot consistently breathe a word 
of disbelief in the immortality of the soul. 

We are now in a position to understand what is meant by 
the commodities of scientific wealth, which I have defined to 


be " all materials and forces which are conducive to the fulfil- 
ment of our destiny." The soundest foundation is to regard 
every material and every force as being a wealth commodity, 
and then it must be subjected to two conditions: (i) the law 
of minimums, and (2) the manner in which the material or 
the force is utilised. Allow me to illustrate. In a previous 
chapter, I regarded, for example, potatoes, sugar, and butter 
as having no scientific value and neither they have as articles 
of diet but they may be converted into foods or other 
commodities which have scientific value. The sting of the 
venomous adder, if used to destroy human beings, could not 
be regarded as a wealth commodity, but its chemical com- 
pounds could be converted into agricultural plants. Fish 
have no value as food for herbivorous animals ; but their 
bodies, when strewn over the land, make deliciously flavoured 
grains and fruits. Our planet contains a large percentage of 
clay and pure clay does not enter into the composition of 
the plant but it would be folly to attempt to grow plants on 
a heap of purely chemical fertilisers, so that clay is beneficial 
as a diluent and an absorbent of fertility, even omitting its 
other useful properties ; and even animal manures, owing to 
their concentrated and soluble nature, would, by themselves, 
soon bring plant life into grief. Pure sand (silica) is also 
very abundant, and although the plant does not require it for 
food, yet its mechanical and other properties are as beneficial 
as those of clay. Think as we may, we cannot find a material 
thing or a force which, subject to the conditions above named, 
is not a wealth commodity. The air we breathe, although it 
is probably the most abundant of all agencies, if we perhaps 
except the light of the sun, is a commodity, but it would 
require an immensely increased quantity of phosphorus to 
produce human beings enough to breathe all the air. In like 
manner, the bodies of animals contain small quantities of 
salt, and yet millions of tons would probably remain after 
converting all the nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, lime, &c., 
into animals and food for their support. Even bonds and 
mortgages are useful for the ashes they contain. We thus 
see that there are great extremes in the physical world, 
from phosphorus to air, and, in the moral world, there 


must be corresponding extremes in relation to offences. 
There exists nothing which is not, or may not become, a 
wealth commodity. 

The mission of science is to demonstrate how the more 
abundant commodities can be best converted into those which 
are more scarce ; and the first period of our development will 
be completed when all commodities will be so abundant that 
all desire to monopolise them will cease, which is the direct 
reverse of the economic policy. Then must also offences 
against commodities cease, for nobody will want to appro- 
priate things which exist in quantities beyond the range of 
his desires. Two forces may work together in the attain- 
ment of this end : (i) the curtailment of desire, and (2) the 
increase of minimum commodities. We cannot change one 
element into another, e.g., nitrogen into phosphorus, but we 
can prevent minimums from waste, and convert abundant 
commodities into those which will better enable us to fulfil 
our destiny. It remains here to be noted that the State, in 
so far as it exists for the protection of property and the ad- 
ministration of justice, must cease to exist, for its functions 
will be gone. From the Individualistic standpoint, the State 
will therefore become a nonentity. When there is no pro- 
perty to be protected, there can exist no crimes against pro- 
perty; and when each individual in every generation has 
equal opportunities for obtaining the means of subsistence, 
all desire for accumulation must cease. A necessary condi- 
tion in the attainment of this object is the abolition of the 
right to labour, 1 for the enforcement of this right can only 
lead to the accumulation of property. The existing state of 
our social affairs may thus be traced to two sources : (i) 
monopoly, and (2) the right to labour. The latter, however, 
implies monopoly, for no right to labour for the accumulation 
of property can exist without first obtaining a monopoly. 
The abolition of all monopolies destroys the right to labour. 

Having thus laid the foundation of scientific economics 
and it should be borne in mind that my remarks have still 

1 Economic labour is here meant, which excludes the idea of exercise in 
gathering the fruits of the earth, or its equivalent in other occupations, 
and also excludes the idea of exercise for the development of our physical 
or mental powers. 


been confined to agricultural labour, which is the basis, and 
which regulates all activity let us now construct the moral 
fundament, which is inseparable from the economic. I do 
not here use the word moral in the ordinary dictionary 
sense ; for I have nothing to do with abstract conceptions of 
morality : my search is for conditions, and if I have erred, 
I can only be criticised for not coining new words to express 
these conditions. Neither must morality be confused with 
virtue, which I shall discuss by-and-by : morality is purely 
objective, and virtue is exclusively subjective, so that these 
qualities belong to different categories. The moral man is 
he who obeys the laws of his being and development, and 
commits no offences against the means of subsistence. This 
dual condition may, however, be resolved into a monism ; for 
he who commits crimes against- the means of subsistence pre- 
vents others, living or yet to live, from obeying the laws of 
their being and development that is, the tendency of nature 
towards the production of the greatest number of the most 
highly organised animals becomes frustrated. Obedience to 
a law implies the non-interference with the rights of others 
to obey that law. In the ultimate analysis, morality is thus 
resolved into obedience. All disobedience can be ultimately 
traced to the relation between structure and function. Every 
structure has a natural function to perform, and all offences 
consist (i) in neglected exercise of function, and (2) in the 
performance of unnatural functions. All structures receive 
natural exercise while engaged in performing such operations 
and duties as enable the possessor to procure the means of 
subsistence. Under a gradual change of environments, there 
is a corresponding change of duties, causing a tendency in 
certain structures to disappear and in certain others to de- 
velop, and, there being also a prior and corresponding change 
of incentive, the natural law of evolution is obeyed. There 
must be an innate impulse in the performance of moral duties, 
and this impulse is virtue. These are the conditions of per- 
petuity, without which all animal life would become extinct. 
I intend no contradiction here between man and the lower 
animals when I speak of non-interference with the rights of 
others, for all rights imply corresponding responsibilities; 



this apparent inconsistency in the application of rights to 
the lower animals will disappear in the further development 
of our inquiry. 

In contrast with this scientific basis of morality, let us 
review some of the immoral acts of economic man. The func- 
tion of our teeth and jaws is to masticate our food, and we 
have attempted to perform the operation with our hands, so 
that, in the absence of natural incentives, we have gone 
through no process of evolution, and such a process would 
not have been conducive to the fulfilment of our destiny. 
Therefore all labour employed in grinding and cooking is 
immoral acts, because we have attempted to force certain 
structures to perform unnatural functions. The same offence 
has been committed in the consumption of animal foods, and 
the fact that we thereby draw on larger areas of land for our 
support, and cause enormous wastes of soil-fertility, are further 
acts of immorality, for we deprive others of rights which they 
should enjoy. Therefore all labour employed in the rearing 
and slaughtering of stock is immoral acts. As we can never 
evolve into inebriate animals, all labour devoted to the pro- 
duction of stimulating drinks is acts of immorality ; so is also 
the wearing of clothes, for we attempt to make our clothing 
perform functions which belong to the skin and other organs. 
Sometimes our immoral acts retort mainly upon ourselves, and 
sometimes fall mainly upon others. For example, when a 
cook is engaged in cooking for several people, the immorality 
falls for the most part upon the cook, who must suffer the 
debilitating effects of the unnatural heat from the cooking- 
stove, although all equally participate in the pernicious 
effects of eating cooked and hot foods. All education 'con- 
nected with these practices is also immoral forces. Indeed, 
all education is immoral which does not develop our instincts. 
We are economic by education, not by instinct, just on the 
same principle as we have been educated to be shame animals, 
no such instinct ever having existed. We are also orthodox 
religionists by education, not by instinct. I refer, however, 
to religions which have been contracted under false concep- 
tions of subjectivity. Man is by instinct a religious animal, 
but he can never evolve into an orthodox religionist. The 


basis of true religion is an instinct possessed by all animals. 
It would not be much of a figure of speech to say that all our 
education is immoral, for it has no subjective basis, and its 
tendency is to suppress our natural instincts, to remove us 
from contact with nature, and to make us artificial (spiritual 1) 
animals. True religion is connected with virtue, not with 

When we now, however, consider this question from the 
standpoint of universal evolution, all these immoral acts form 
the basis of morality. It is unquestionable that man has 
been destined to pass through a stage of keen objectivity, and 
whether he is yet destined to pass through a further Social- 
istic stage of evolution before the dawn of true subjectivity 
need not be discussed here. Socialism, however, has so often 
proved a failure that no rational mind can see any necessity 
for repeating the experiment. The moral ground against it 
is overwhelming, namely, that virtue must emanate from the 
State instead of evolving from the inner consciousness of the 
individual. The idea is barbaric, and has no instinctive origin. 

We have now arrived at conclusions which enable us to 
form a moral ratio, and to reduce all morality to mathe- 
matical rules. In words, the ratio may be expressed as 
follows : 

The most moral man is he who best fulfils his destiny and draws 
on the smallest area of land for his support. 

Here we have what may be called a physio-ethic ratio in 
which a given area of land forms the antecedent term, and 
the various achievements of the individual form the conse- 
quent term. All that is now required is to reduce these 
terms to numbers. It must not be inferred that the principle 
involved is to compel the individual to draw on small areas 
of land indeed, the reverse is, rather, the true conception, 
namely, to induce him to draw on the largest possible areas, 
providing he can show correspondingly increased results in 
the fulfilment of his destiny, but he Avill be prevented from 
drawing on large areas and yielding small results. It will be 
just as criminal for him to utilise too little land as too much, 
and the basis of his knowledge, and his' morality, will consist 
in his being able to calculate closely the area of land which 


he requires to fulfil his destiny in the most efficient manner. 
It is plain that this question is closely allied with that of 
population, and when the time comes for scientific restriction, 
the most immoral men will be obliged to restrict their families, 
if they are permitted to have any, and thus none but the 
moral men will finally survive. In this manner, every law 
of nature is obeyed, not excepting the struggle for existence, 
and the law is carried out in a humane and intelligent way, 
instead of being left to the cruel processes which pertain to 
economic men and the brutes. In the following chapter, it is 
my purpose to manufacture the machinery requisite for the carry- 
ing out of this project ; but before the ratio is further discussed 
one precaution is necessary, namely, the meaning attached to 
the word land. In the very widest sense, when it includes 
the force of light derived from the sun, land is synonymous 
with wealth, and in this case it also includes minerals, coal, 
&c., in the bowels of the earth ; but as it will not be necessary 
to use it in this enlarged meaning, it may be said that, in the 
widest sense, land includes the soil and the atmosphere ; for 
no separation can be made, seeing that about 90 per cent, of 
the foods we eat come from the latter source, leaving only 10 
per cent, to be drawn from the soil. In a more limited sense, 
the meaning is synonymous with soil, and in the most re- 
stricted signification, it means phosphorus the minimum 
element of soil-fertility. The context will usually be suffi- 
cient index to the meaning, and as I apprehend no confusion, 
I may be spared the alternative of coining new words to ex- 
press these various meanings. As already pointed out, the 
individual has a title to the area of land required for his 



HAVING shown that the land, of necessity as well as axiomati- 
cally, belongs to humanity, it is evident that any given gene- 
ration can only act as executors or administrators for posterity. 
No human laws enacted with respect to land titles can change 
or repeal those written on the face of nature. If the indi- 
vidual worked his plot of land, if it were set off by metes and 
bounds, and if the population remained stationary, each could 
carry out the will of posterity without any necessity for social 
organisation; but this basis is only theoretic, for although 
each individual is supposed to occupy and work his plot and 
it must be borne in mind that he cannot be deprived of this 
area, for the fact of his being alive forces him to draw on his 
parcel for his support, and to deprive him of his land means 
that he has no right to live yet this theoretic standpoint 
does not interfere with his right to engage others to Avork his 
plot or to exchange its products, in whole or in part, for those 
of any other parcel of land in any part of the world, so that in 
practice there need be little change in existing customs. : some 
may work small gardens and others hundreds of acres. What 
is required to be known is merely the area of land, measured 
by its products, which each individual requires for his support. 
Without a knowledge of this detail, the population could not 
be adjusted to the area. It now stands to reason that a social 
organisation is required ; and when we also consider the con- 
sequent term of the ratio, the necessity for such is still more 
conspicuous. The material and the moral being inseparable, 
it is plain that the functions of organised society are not only 
to determine the area of land which each individual draws on 
for his support, but also to measure his moral achievements 



that is, to determine the ratio between the plot of land and the 
destiny of the individual. The person stands between his plot 
and his destiny between the matter and the force which it 
exerts. The social organisation which enforces this principle 
is the scientific State. Its function is to carry out the laws of 
nature, no other laws being necessary, human or divine. It is 
evident that the basis of this State is purely and absolutely indi- 
vidualistic. The individual must determine for himself whether 
or not he is to go down to posterity to enter the kingdom of 
Heaven and he must, therefore, have absolute control over 
the area of land required for his support. The State cannot 
dictate what he shall eat, drink, or wear; its function is 
merely to determine his physio-ethic ratio, and the law of 
social restraint, or scientific fashionism, will be the admini- 
strator of justice. It may be said that this is not an indi- 
vidualistic basis, that Individualism means the performance 
of an immoral action and the shifting of the responsibility on 
others. All I have to say is, that nature knows nothing about 
economic Individualism. 

In order to understand more clearly what is meant by 
reducing our physio-ethic ratios to numbers, let us take an 
illustration. A holds the theory that man is an omnivorous 
animal, and that he can be healthier, stronger, and happier 
by keeping himself comfortably warm ; while B maintains 
that man is a vegetarian, and that health, strength, and 
happiness consist in keeping oneself comfortably cool. The 
result will be that A will require, say, four acres of land for 
his support, while one acre will be sufficient for B. Now, the 
State, in determining the physical and mental achievements 
of these competitors in the struggle for existence, finds 
that A obtains, for example, say, 800 of such numbers 
as may for the present be called units of value. His 
ratio will therefore be 4 : 800, or i : 200. If B now ob- 
tains the same number of units, his ratio will be i : 800. 
In this case the moral achievements of both competitors are 
identical, but B has performed his duties on one-fourth of the 
quantity of land which A has drawn on, and is therefore a 
more moral man. Now, it is evident that A, if he is ambi- 
tious enough to struggle for existence or found a family, will 


be compelled either to increase his units or reduce bis area 
of land, or both. In order to obtain B's standard of morality 
without reducing bis habits of living, A must obtain 3200 
units, making a ratio of 4:3200, or i :8oo ; or by reducing his 
land to t\vo acres and increasing his units to 1600, he can 
accomplish the same results. If B now attempts to obtain 
the same ratio on, say, half an acre and fails, his ratio now 
being, for example, 1:200 that is, equal to A's both com- 
petitors are equally immoral, for they have equally miscal- 
culated the proper area of land required to fulfil their destiny 
in the most efficient manner. It is as immoral to draw on 
too little land as on too much. From this basis all the 
functions of the State may be derived ; and it is my purpose 
in this chapter to show how the scheme may be made prac- 
ticable. It is further to be observed that the basis of the 
State is a social compact. The conditions of this compact 
may be reduced to one clause, namely : " When population 
begins to press against the means of subsistence, we hereby 
agree that only the most moral people shall be permitted to 
live in posterity." When a majority of the people in any 
generation agree to this document, the social problem will be 
solved, and the devil with all his hosts will be routed. 

Economic forces are now reversed, and we find ourselves in 
the scientific or Humanitistic category. The supreme object 
now is to manufacture human beings instead of sacrificing 
them on the altar of trade, and the officers of State are a 
business corporation elected by posterity for the purpose of 
carrying out its supreme will. Agriculture, manufacture, and 
trade must all be made subservient to man's destiny ; and as 
the aims of the State and those of the individual are identical, 
no collision of interests can occur. The method of election of 
State officers must also be the direct reverse of the economic 
system. There can be no elections in the economic sense of 
the word. The most moral men, by virtue of their morality, 
are permitted to become officers, the most moral men having 
the first choice ; but the acceptance of an office becomes a 
duty rather than an obligation. All positions, whether they 
belong to the State or not, are open to the most efficient or 
moral competitors in the respective departments, so that no 


idea of elections can be conceived, and the officer retains his 
position so long as he keeps in advance of all competitors. 

Society now being a co-operative enterprise for the manu- 
facture of machinery called man, it is necessary to analyse 
this machine in order that the greatest quantity and highest 
quality of goods may be obtained, and it should be borne in 
mind that the structures and functions of animals do not differ 
in principle from those of inanimate machines. Animals may 
be classified by their temperaments, but these are less pointedly 
marked in man than in lower animals, owing to the abstract 
character of his education and the artificial nature of his habits 
of life. These temperaments or systems exist in every indi- 
vidual, but there is usually a predominance of one or two of 
the three divisions ; sometimes, however, there exists what is 
called a balancing of the temperaments that is, there is little 
or no visible difference with reference to their predominating 

1. The mmtal system, or subjective temperament, implies a 
predominance of brain and other nerve tissue, and is the source 
through which thought and sensation are manifested. When 
this system predominates, the possessor has a sparkling, intel- 
ligent eye, a clear, sharp voice, is extremely sensitive to enjoy, 
ment, pain, and suffering, is quick in movements, highly re- 
fined, clear-headed, prone to study, has fine, light hair, small 
bone and muscle, a soft, delicate skin, and a highly magnetic 
touch ; but being deficient in vital and motive powers, vitality 
is easily exhausted. 

2. The motive system, or objective temperament, is charac- 
terised by highly developed bone and muscle, giving the 
possessor great powers of endurance and great tenacity to 
life ; he is full of bodily activity, uses sledge-hammer oratory 
in preference to refined language with its accompanying grace- 
fulness of manner, is a great pioneer and plodder, has strongly 
marked features, a dark complexion, a compact frame, a strong 
determination, and is an accomplished schemer, although the 
mind operates slowly owing to the deficiency of quality of 
nerve tissue. 

3. The vital system, which embraces the digestive organs, 
the heart, the lungs, and the viscera, is marked by large 


lungs, a strong circulatory process, large digestive and as- 
similating organs, a profusion of blood, and strong animal 
spirits. Proper breathing and an abundant supply of fresh 
air are necessary for the full development of the vital struc- 
tures and functions. When this system predominates, the 
possessor readily accumulates an excess of fatty tissue, and 
there is not sufficient mental or motive incentive to \vorkit off. 
He enjoys easy, out-door exercise, dislikes study, is very impul- 
sive, enjoys life, is inclined to be shrewd, as he acquires know- 
ledge more by conversation and observation than by study, is 
very showy, and makes an excellent priest or politician. 

In well-balanced temperaments there is a blending of all 
the qualities and dispositions named, and various subdivisions 
and combinations could be enumerated if space permitted. 
The scientific and the artistic temperament cannot be sepa- 
rated, for in both instances there exists a keen desire to pry 
into nature, and as the natural instincts predominate, there is 
an abhorrence of educational rules, methods, and restrictions. 
The natural desire is to follow one's bent, and to ridicule the 
follies of the multitude. The possessors of this temperament 
are not money-making animals ; they would rather starve, 
although this preference often leads them to fame and for- 
tune. Too frequently, however, this brilliant temperament 
is perverted by social intercourse, and the possessor is then 
educated to act as if he were an objectivist. There are many 
indications by which the person of education may be distin- 
guished from the person of instinct; and I have taken special 
pains in observing that the former has a preference for whelps, 
especially such carnivorous animals as the dog and the cat, 
while it is the joy of the latter to kiss lambs and foals. We 
might consider many tribes and nationalities, past and present, 
and classify them in relation to their temperaments as affect- 
ing their subjective and objective traits ; but the influences 
of education have been so potent that peoples have been com- 
pelled to act contrary to their natural impulses, so that an 
inquiry of this kind might be misleading in many respects. 
Although there is a close and unmistakable relation between 
all our structures and functions, yet I have little faith in the 
progress of physiology, phrenology, physiognomy, and kindred 


sciences so long as the subjects are mere economic animals 
so long as we attempt to force structures to perform unnatural 
functions. Our heads and faces cannot be successfully examined 
so long as our bodies are inaccessible, for the part should be 
studied in connection with the whole. When a law is not 
distinctly stamped on the part, it may be learnt through the 
general law of the whole. Even after our decease, supersti- 
tion practically forbids access to the organs of our interior. 

We must have a sound body before we can have a sound 
mind a sound structure before we can have a sound func- 
tion. The scientist wants the function by all means, but he 
takes the structure as the basis ; the failure of the abstrac- 
tionist is that he wants to save the function, and as for the 
structure, it makes no difference about that. It were de- 
voutly to be wished that he attempted to carry out this 
theory in matters pertaining to Church and State. 

A human being is most aptly compared with a steam- 
engine. An engine must have a good vital system that is, 
a furnace sufficiently spacious to produce heat proportionate 
to the energy to be expended, and the fuel must conform to 
the size and structure of the furnace. The motive system, 
or boiler, must be strong enough to stand the pressure ; and 
the nervous system, or engine, must possess intensity or 
massiveness proportionate to the velocity or ponderosity of 
the machinery to be set in motion. If velocity is required, 
we must have a slimly constructed engine with driving-wheels 
of large circumference and with piston-rods of long stroke 
just as the man of velocity has long limbs and sharp perceiv- 
ing faculties. If the engine is for heavy machinery, moving 
at a slow speed, quite a different construction is required. This 
mechanical law pervades all animals, and is aptly illustrated 
by the nimbleness of the weasel and the sluggishness of the 
sloth. The structure is an unfailing measure of the function, 
and our inability to make > close observations and draw logical 
conclusions does alter the principle. When we once recognise 
the law, we must conclude that it operates under conditions 
beyond the reach of our faculties. The law cannot strictly be 
expected to apply to domesticated animals, however, for we 
manufacture them for our own use, while nature manufactures 


them for their own good ; and we must aid nature to make 
ourselves for our own good, and not for the good of trade. 
In speaking of the relation between structure and function, 
general rules cannot make allowance for flaws that may 
occasionally appear in the material. A boiler made from a 
certain brand of plate is calculated to stand a certain pressure ; 
but in practice a test by hydraulic pressure is usually made 
for security against flaws. So it is with pieces of timber : a 
given species of wood, grown under given conditions, will 
stand a given test of strength compared with other species, 
but from this it does not follow that all pieces of timber from 
the strongest species are stronger than some pieces from the 
weakest species. The perfection of material is when the brand 
is an absolute guarantee of strength, no special test being 
necessary. So it is with animal mechanics : every bone, 
muscle, sinew, and organ has a certain strain to bear, and the 
work which every species of animal is decreed to perform is 
connected with the struggle for existence. In man, however, 
this law is constantly violated ; for we find in many savage 
tribes a disposition to deform the structure out of conformity 
with the natural function. Hence we find wedge-shaped 
heads, thus deformed by artificial means ; also flat and round 
heads, small feet, &c. There was an ancient tribe which 
practised the slitting of their tongues. If the intensity of 
barbarism were measured by the amount of injury sustained 
by such practices, and their consequent irrationality, I would 
instance a race of barbarians whose fair sex flatten their waists 
by tight lacing; but I purposely refrain from making any 
allusion, because I do not wish to trifle with people's credulity. 
Such methods of deformity may be traced to very ancient 
customs or religious superstitions. 

The plain duty of the individual now is to exercise his 
mental, motive, and vital structures ; the maximum degree 
of development is attained when they are exercised to the 
fullest capacity without strain, providing the proper quantity 
and quality of nutriment be supplied. All other conditions 
being equal, the most moral man will be he who attains this 
degree of perfection ; but if some men gain an advantage 
through hereditary forces, the morality is none the less meri- 


torious. The antecedent term of the physio-ethic ratio is 
essentially an agricultural, and the consequent term a mecha- 
nical, inquiry. The departments of State will therefore be 
primarily of two classes ; and the duties of the officers will be 
to establish comparative standards, with the view of ascertain- 
ing which individuals fulfil their destiny most efficiently. 

Starting with the theoretic basis that each individual is 
tenant for life of the plot of land which he draws on for his 
support, we are in a position to evolve our system of agricul- 
ture. We may suppose, at the outset, that each occupies and 
works l the plot which he determines upon for his subsistence ; 
but should some individuals choose other occupations, or should 
A desire to exchange products with B, a contract is founded 
between individuals with which the State has nothing to do. 
If A does not till his plot, the work must be performed by 
B (or B and C) ; and if B consents to till A's plot, A must 
certainly render an equivalent to B. Although A does not 
work his plot, he cannot be deprived of its products ; and if 
B is foolish enough to do A's work without receiving an 
ample equivalent, he loses a yard or two in the race for 
existence. If C's plot is specially adapted for wheat and D's 
for oats, an exchange of these products will be of advantage 
to both ; for the area of land which .each requires for his 
support is thereby reduced, the conclusion being that an im- 
mense impetus will be given to trade, and that it will be 
impossible to force trade out of its natural channels. The 
idea may be entertained that this scheme, carried out amongst 
so many individuals, will lead to great complications, but the 
reverse is really the case ; for it simply means that every in- 
dividual may go to the market and purchase all his needs, 
but instead of paying money, which system of exchange is 
abolished and no money is required for any purpose whatever, 
he must know the land equivalent of each commodity he pur- 

1 I use the word "work" with a special meaning. I have used the 
word "exercise" to mean the gathering of the natural fruits of the earth ; 
but even should society resolve to return to natural methods, it will 
require many centuries to attain this end, so that, meanwhile, the land 
must be "worked." I confine the word "labour" to the working of 
plots which we do not need for our subsistence, the privilege to labour 
upon them being, therefore, a monopoly, so that labour is a criminal 


chases, and here some decimal scale of calculation must be 
adopted for the sake of simplicity. This process can be made 
so simple that ail commodities may be reduced to land equi- 
valents by an easy effort of the mind mental arithmetic. 
The transfers are made by book accounts, on the principle of 
the existing system of credits, but there is no sucli thing as 
getting into debt. Such a thing is a physical impossibility 
in the scientific State. Each person's account, therefore, shows 
the area of land which he has drawn on for his subsistence, 
and a decimal system will also be necessary for the measure- 
ment of land areas. For a basis of this sort, the acre is much 
too large an area; the one-hundredth part would be nearer 
the mark. 

It is further evident that each individual must occupy some 
portion of land, even if it is only the spot which his house 
stands on. Linking this with the fact that agriculture is the 
basis of knowledge, that everybody must know how to con- 
nect himself with the means of his subsistence, and that his 
success in the struggle for existence depends upon the prac- 
tical and scientific soundness of this knowledge, we arrive at 
the conclusion that some small portion of land must be con- 
nected with every residence, and tended by the occupier. I 
refer here to parcels of land which are less in area than those 
required to be drawn on for the full means of subsistence, so 
that the larger parcels will be greater than the areas neces- 
sary for the support of the individuals or families living in 
.the residence connected with the portion of land on which it 
is built. For this purpose, three classifications of land parcels 
are necessary, i. The smallest parcel of land connected with 
any residence must be sufficiently large to utilise as fertilisers 
all the excretions and other waste products of the household. 
This involves the minimum of agricultural work, and does 
not interfere with regular occupations of the members of the 
household ; on the contrary, it is less than the amount of 
out-door employment necessary for the preservation of health. 
2. The second class has a different basis, and the size of the 
parcel is regulated by the quantity of garden products 
fruits, vegetables, and nuts required for the full supply of 
the family occupying the residence. 3. The third class 


parcels, in addition to the above-named products, are so ex- 
tended as to be also suited for the production of grains, 
meat, and dairy products. I here include stock and dairy- 
ing, because I have no right to presume that, in an individua- 
listic State, all the inhabitants will adopt a vegetarian 
diet. The main reason for separating the first and second 
from the third class is, that fruits and vegetables may be 
conveniently grown on small plots of land with a minimum 
of work and outlay, while the products of class three demand 
the expenditure of work and machinery, and are therefore 
not adapted to small parcels of land. Agricultural progress 
does not consist in knowing how to work the land and raise 
heavy crops, but to know how to leave the crops alone and 
let them raise themselves, the ultimate consequence being 
the evolution of work into exercise that is, the reduction 
of human efforts to the gathering and storing of the fruits of 
the earth. The necessary preparation for this process is the 
establishment of centres where agricultural plants grow wild, 
whence they may be brought to the occupied land and under- 
go a slight operation of tillage until they are able to take 
care of themselves ; but a certain amount of pruning will 
always be necessary. For the attainment of this end, the 
wretched idea that plants are improved under domestication 
must be abandoned ; the direct reverse is the case, for 
domestication has the effect of diminishing both the flavour 
and nutritive properties of all foods, and domesticated 
animals may be placed in the same category in this respect. 
Loss of nutriment, loss of flavour, loss of vitality, and increase 
of propensity to disease all go hand in hand, while these 
properties are reversed by increasing the hardiness of plants 
and animals that is, gradually exposing them to less favour- 
able conditions than those which exist in their native abodes. 
By this system of agriculture no fertility is wasted, and cities, 
which are an economic idea, cease to exist. The process of 
countrifying the city and citifying the country gradually 
takes place, for when residences in towns and cities become 
old and tumble down, the plots on which they stand are 
converted into gardens, and the new residences are built in 
the suburbs or in the country. The ultimate of this process 


of evolution will be that the whole country becomes one 
city or, expressed in other language, all the cities and 
towns become one country place. Those who like cities 
may call England, for example, a city, and those who prefer 
to live in the country may name England a country place 
without a city, a town, or a village. All the difference is in 
the name and in one's method of thinking. 

Before entering into the question of agricultural education, 
let us discuss the mechanical department of the State. Agri- 
culture does not exclude the mechanical idea, for it embraces 
physical exercise, although the primary conception is the 
intellectual development connected with the procuring and 
the perpetuating of the means of subsistence. It is the sum 
of all the sciences, and is the regulator of all other pursuits. 
Going back again to first principles, A, who does not work 
his entire plot, must render equivalent service to B, who 
performs A's agricultural duties, and A's work must therefore 
be equivalent to B's. At the outset B will work, say, three 
hours a day for A, so that A's work for B will be the 
expenditure of a corresponding quantity of energy. With 
the development of agriculture, however, B will be able to 
perform A's work in, say, one hour per day, so that A's work 
for B will be correspondingly deduced. We thus deduce the 
law that agriculture is the regulator of all work, and when 
no work is required for the production of food there will 
be nothing left but exercise. Labour cannot exist without 
monopoly and consequent robbery, which leads to the accu- 
mulation of property for ourselves and our " heirs and assigns 
for ever." All property is robbery ; and the full significance 
of this eternal truth is only half understood. He who labours 
on other men's plots without their consent and appropriates 
the products is a monopolist, a robber, and a plunderer ; and 
not only so, but he also deprives others of the privilege of 
exercising their functions in the natural way, thus bereaving 
them of their vitality as well as of their property. The 
fact that the rightful tenants of certain plots are not yet 
born is no excuse for plundering them and robbing them of 
" liberty, equality, and fraternity." Now, in order to under- 
stand the relation between A and B more thoroughly, we 


must know what their duties are, which consist in the exer- 
cise of their nervous, motive, and vital functions in such a 
way as will enable them to obtain the means of subsistence 
by the most approved methods of the age in which they live. 
If each works his own plot and has no transactions with the 
other, their duties and responsibilities are plain ; but if their 
plots are not ample for the support of themselves and their 
families, a very insignificant portion of their time would be 
employed in gathering the natural productions of their plots, 
and if they went idle for the remaining portion of the time, 
they would ultimately rust out and cease to exist. Another 
law comes into force, however, which prevents this calamity, 
namely, the families grow out of proportion to the size of the 
plots, and, there being no other land within reach, the two 
families engage in constant warfare against each other, and 
the stronger members keep destroying the weaker until the 
population is reduced within the means of subsistence. This 
law of exercise of function pertains to all animals, including 
man ; but man, by virtue of his superior intelligence, has in- 
troduced another law which the lower animals have not yet, 
as a rule, discovered. Instead of killing off all the surplus 
population by bellicose methods, he introduces an artificial 
system of agriculture, which sometimes temporarily increases 
the means of subsistence, although ultimately frustrating all 
his designs, but has the advantage, through the creation of 
labour, of preventing him from rusting out or, rather, forces 
some to rust out and others to wear out. The scientific pro- 
blem now to be solved is how A and B can restrict their 
families within the productive capacity of their plots, live 
neighbourly lives, and be prevented from rusting out. The 
law of the restriction of families will be discussed by-and-by, 
and I shall here proceed to inquire if any incentive can be 
found to induce men to exercise their nervous, motive, 
and vital functions under conditions in which the means 
of subsistence are abundant. I have already shown that 
neither A nor B can be deprived of the products of their 
plots, and that no amount of idleness or indifference on the 
part of either can deprive him of the means of subsistence ; 
the right to live carries the right to draw on the products of 


one's plot. But the right to live in the world implies the 
right to come into the world, and the right to come into the 
world implies that there is room there. If not, it implies the 
right to elbow somebody else out of the world. Nature's law 
of development implies the right of the stronger to come into 
the world in order to drive out the weaker, and no powers on 
earth can change the principle involved in this law, although 
its stringency may be mitigated. If twenty-five animals 
inhabit a territory where there is only food for twenty, 
it is plain that the food cannot be equally distributed, for 
the thereby engendered deterioration of the species would 
end in its extinction ; if five of the strongest were removed 
the same results would follow, so that the preservation of the 
species can only be secured by the constant weeding out of 
the weaker members. Stagnation, produced by weeding out 
the medium individuals or other causes, will end as fatally as 
retrogression, but a longer time will be required ; for so long 
as there are other species of animals which progress by constant 
removal of the weaker individuals, they will ultimately win the 
race in the struggle for existence. If A and B now agree upon 
an armistice, substituting for hostilities a contract for the re- 
striction of their families within the compass of subsistence, the 
terms of the contract will decide whether A and B are jointly 
or separately responsible for new claimants upon the means of 
subsistence ; but it is evident that the contract cannot be made 
in violation of natural laws, for it would give rise to future 
complications, and if the laws of nature are obeyed there can 
arise no necessity for a contract except in so far as the mean- 
ing of the word is so limited that it only implies an agreement 
to obey the laws of nature. Any social compact which may be 
interpreted to have a different meaning must lead to anarchy. 
The individual now being at liberty to purchase all his 
needs on the markets, the question arises, Where are the in- 
ducements to manufacture the commodities and bring them 
upon the markets'? Having abolished labour, which is un- 
natural and criminal, I have also abolished wages. People 
demand wages for two reasons : ( i ) because they dislike 
labour, and (2) because it is the means of procuring subsist- 
euce. What I now propose to do is to reward people for 



their exercise. A large number of people exercise their 
functions without any hope of reward, save to be strong and 
have good health, and if in addition to this I also give them 
scientific wages, I am sure they will be highly pleased. By 
abolishing what people do not like, and rewarding them for 
what they willingly do without reward, I think I should 
win the sympathy and support of every member of the com- 
munity. There is no alternative to this conclusion, even 
should I not feel disposed to be so liberal, for economic 
methods must be reversed in every particular. It may be 
said, however, that there still exists such a thing as work as 
well as exercise, and that people will demand wages for their 
work ; to which I reply that the adherence to certain economic 
rules during the transition to the scientific system is no fault 
of this system. However, I will suppose, for the sake of 
argument, that people, meanwhile, demand pay for their work, 
and I will now show how they can be paid without the use of 
monej', even after the organisation of the scientific State. In 
order to effect this result, I must here explain what is meant 
by units of value, referred to at the beginning of this chapter. 
It makes little difference, except as a matter of convenience, 
what is taken as a unit of value, although I shall discuss this 
question presently: the essential character of this standard 
consists in the bringing of all commodities or values into a 
just relation with the established unit, and for this purpose 
let us take the average time and energy expended in the per- 
formance of a given piece of work. .For the expression of this 
unit I require a new word chronop. 1 Still confining my re- 
marks to agricultural operations, experiments will be required 
with reference to the time occupied in the performance of each 
operation under average conditions in the different classes of 
soil, and accurate estimates as to the yields per acre must be 

1 Greek, chronos, time, and Latin, ops, work. I must here wage war 
with the philologist, who will maintain (no better word being within 
reach) that I have no right to drop the s in ops, but I do so for the sake 
of euphony. I contend that it is better to butcher the dead language 
than the living. If I retained the *, the plural would be chronopses 
instead of chronops, and the adjective would be chronopsic instead of 
chronopic. Moreover, I contend that the accent may rest on the first or 
second syllable, or both, according to whether the time or the work is to 
be emphasised. * 


made for the purpose of establishing general averages. The 
time and labour expended on each crop now being known, the 
tiller receives credit in chronops, not for the actual time and 
labour which he expends, but on the basis of the general 
averages under his particular conditions ; so that if A and B 
accomplish the same results with the expenditure of different 
momentums, A expending twice as much time and force as B, 
their chronopic credits remain the same, and B will have the 
further advantage of saving time, which he may devote to the 
earning of chronops in other departments pertaining to his 
destiny, the tendency thus being towards the raising of crops 
without tillage operations. 

We now see clearly and distinctly from two standpoints 
that the farmer is not entitled to the full product of his work, 
if he produces more than is required for his own subsistence 
and that of his family : (i) because, as we have seen, each 
individual in the State is entitled to draw on the products 
of the area which he selects for his subsistence, and (2) the 
farmer is paid in chronops for all his work. What is his 
inducement to work for chronops? The answer is plain, 
namely, that they, in connection with the area of land which 
he draws on for his support, enter into the formation of his 
physio-ethic ratio, and thus decide whether or not he is to be 
promoted and to live in posterity. Plainly speaking, he must 
struggle for existence or cease to exist. It is further evident 
that no farmer who tills more land than he requires for his 
own subsistence will do so unless he receives chronopic equi- 
valents. Here we have the basis for all other occupations, 
and this scheme will have the tendency to force all individuals 
into those employments in which they earn the most chronops, 
just as trade will be forced into its natural channels. The 
same principles and incentives apply to all branches of in- 
dustry, with the result that people must struggle after 
morality, instead of money ; and the most immoral people 
will be weeded out, instead of the most moral. Under econo- 
mic conditions, the most moral people, detesting the tricks of 
trade, have no incentive to struggle after money, and they are 
therefore weeded out, because they cannot, as a rule, afford to 
get married and raise families. Many who are not removed 


in this way fall on our fields of battle. Under the plan just 
described, only such commodities will be manufactured which 
will enable people to exercise their functions, and exchanges 
will be made in chronops, just as under the present system of 
transferring transactions by accounts instead of paying cash. 

The development of this system is an important feature. 
It is plain that people cannot get all the work they desire, 
and that an even distribution of the work cannot be made. 
The amount of work will always be growing less, and the 
desire for it will be correspondingly on the increase, so that 
if the system were confined to work people would finally rust 
out. But it does not follow that people must cease to exer- 
cise their functions when their poverty-stricken task of work 
is done. People can exercise their functions just as well 
when there is no work whatever to be performed, providing 
always that there exists sufficient incentive. For the purpose 
of evading this difficulty, all distinction between work and 
play must be abandoned, and every individual must receive 
the same chronopic credits whether he exercises his functions 
in the field, in the factory, in the gymnasium, in the studio, 
in the museum, or in the rowing-boat. By the adoption of 
this plan there can be no limit to the opportunities for earn- 
ing chronops. If some people would rather play than work, 
the credits can be so arranged that more chronops can be 
earned by working than playing ; but there is no danger of 
clashing here, for the amount of work will be so small com- 
pared with other forms of exercise that it will come to be 
regarded as play. The boy does not imagine that he is 
working when he is building a play-house ; neither does the 
little girl when she is making dresses for her doll. Her only 
complaint is that she has not dolls enough to be dressed. 
" But some kinds of work are dirty," exclaims the critic. I 
challenge anybody to point out any dirty work, except when 
a structure is performing a false function. Reduced to its 
final analysis, my system merely forces every individual to 
exercise his structures in the performance of their natural 
functions ; and when this end is attained we enjoy " liberty, 
equality, and fraternity " in the fullest and deepest sense of the 
phrase. All exercise develops into labour and very dirty 


labour too when the structure performs false functions. Idle- 
ness is a false function of all our structures. Indeed, both 
work and labour vanish when all structures perform their 
natural and legitimate functions; but when we attain this 
degree of perfection we become Gods, having no desires. 

From what has just been said, the functions of the State 
can be easily evolved. As already observed, there are two 
main divisions : (i) the vital (agricultural), and (2) the physical 
(mechanical). The State has no control over the individual 
in anything pertaining to the exercise of his functions. He 
who is obliged to suffer the consequences of his conduct must 
have unlimited control over his own actions. There is only 
one principle on which the State can act. As we have seen, 
society has agreed that the most moral individuals shall hold 
the most honourable and responsible positions in the respec- 
tive departments, whether within or without the official circle, 
and it is therefore clearly the right and duty of the State to 
have full control over such affairs as will enable it to deter- 
mine who the most moral people are. In a word, the State 
is merely a body of examiners. This fundamental principle, 
however, does not interfere with other duties which society 
may think fit to hand over to the State from time to time, 
and again withdraw at their good pleasure. The State, as 
an organised body, may have the machinery for undertaking 
many duties which naturally belong to the individuals, and 
an individual may be an officer of the State in a very limited 
capacity, his main duties being bound up with the unofficered 
classes. It is the most imperative duty of the State to arrange 
the chronops in such a manner that the individuals will be 
induced to exercise such functions as will enable them to pro- 
cure the means of subsistence in the most scientific way known 
to that generation. Otherwise expressed, the structures which 
are brought into the most active use during work must have 
corresponding importance during play. All sports, games, 
amusements, &c., must therefore be conducted on scientific 
principles, and the performers must also know what por- 
tion (or portions) of their bodies is brought into the most 
active play with every movement of the body. The physical 
and mental training must therefore go hand in hand, and 


every movement of the body can be ultimately traced to its 
effect in procuring the means of subsistence. These duties 
belong to the mechanical department of State, and they 
again form the basis of all the mechanical sciences, just 
as agriculture is fundamentally a biological pursuit. The 
individual, as we have seen, has three classes of structures 
to be exercised, namely, the nervous, the motive, and the 
vital system, and the chronopic units must be so adjusted 
that none of these systems be allowed to degenerate, but 
that all receive a sufficient amount of exercise to develop 
them harmoniously. Matter being the basis of force struc- 
ture the basis of function all the structures of the body 
must be examined and justly chronopised. For example, 
weak eyes are usually caused by excessive indulgence in mid- 
iiight fctudies or other employments, so that, for the purpose 
of breaking down these ruinous practices, a high chronopic 
value could be attached to sound eyes, which would have 
a tendency to compel people to rise early in the morning, 
instead of sleeping by day and seeking their prey by night, 
and the area of land required to furnish the light would be 
saved. This rule would also have special weight when applied 
to our vital system, for the man who attempted to live on 
cooked food, and then exercise his jaws by felling trees, would 
soon fall behind in the struggle for existence. A person who 
has a weak organ eyes, for example suffers no serious in- 
convenience by undergoing such tests ; for he can earn 
chrouops in physical as well as mental avocations. It will 
now be seen that there are ample inducements for manufac- 
turing commodities and bringing them on the market, so that 
those who purchase them need never be stinted. Even such 
occupations as require little or no expenditure of energy, thus 
bringing no functions into play, may be performed, for there 
are periods during which people must rest, as well as those 
during which they must exercise their structures and functions. 
The chronops are very flexible ; for they may be earned for the 
direct performance of special duties, as wages are now paid, 
or the same results may be obtained by measuring the develop- 
ment of our structures, or both methods may be more or less 
combined. If a person performs a given piece of work, \vo 


know that lie has exercised certain structures ; and if certain 
structures have gained in strength, we kiiow % that certain 
work has been performed so that it makes no difference in 
the end which method of measurement is adopted. We now 
clearly see that agriculture, manufacture, and trade are forced 
to produce men, and not men to produce them, as in the 
economic category men who by their virtue and morality 
will shame the angels and the Gods and the conversion of 
the soil of our isles, endeared to us by so many sacred memo* 
ries, into a hundred millions of human souls is the most gigantic 
manufacturing enterprise that has ever been conceived; and 
we must have manufacture before trade can flourish. 

In this work I must avoid details as much as possible, not 
only for the want of space, but also to prevent confusion with 
the first principles of the scientific State. However, I shall 
here give one illustration, which will be generally applicable 
to all enterprises so far as the principles are concerned. I 
shall select a form of enjoyment through which our functions 
can be most fully and completely exercised, namely, aquatic 
sports. The first principle of development being to know 
how to breathe and to have an abuudant supply of fresh air, 
the watering-place must always be the most scientific resort. 
The man who makes the best use of his nose has the first 
chance in the struggle for existence, providing he intelligently 
carries out this invaluable piece of knowledge ; but he who 
wears clothing has hardly any use for a nose and so long as 
he attempts to remain a cooking animal, his nose is of little 
use for smelling purposes. The necessary preparation for 
aquatic sports is to enjoy air and rain-baths in country 
districts, so that when I select aquatic sports I presume 
the sportsmen to be much more highly developed than 
economic animals. Those who make the best use of their 
noses have the strongest lungs, the greatest vitality, and 
the most active skin, and without these essentials motive 
and mental development dwindles into the limbo of abstrac- 
tion. But bathing and boating do not embrace all the duties 
of the aquatic sportsman. The boat-factories are not erected 
in localities where boats can be made most cheaply, or with 
the expenditure of the least energy, but where they can be 


most profitably utilised for the development of the sports- 
man's structures. It would be impossible for him to devote 
his whole time and attention to rowing and swimming, be- 
cause, in his examinations, he would fall below the standard 
in general proficiency, although he may obtain first-class 
honours as an aquatic sportsman. This drawback may be 
partially remedied by two methods : (i) the erection of a 
boat-factory, and (2) by the establishment of a library which 
contains the best works on aquatic sports. This list, how- 
ever, may be indefinitely increased, such as by the erection of 
gymnasiums, factories for the manufacture of other commo- 
dities, &c. Now, when the sportsman also engages in the 
manufacture of boats and in the study of aquatic mechanics, 
he exercises a larger number of his functions, and there- 
fore also earns more chronops. If he wishes to make a 
speciality of aquatic science, he will be an expert boat- 
maker, as well as oarsman and swimmer ; but unless he be- 
comes a distinguished inventor, or accomplishes something 
unusual in the development of aquatic sports, he will find 
himself obliged to move into some other centre of industry 
for the purpose of earning chronops in other branches, thus 
also exercising other structures and functions. Following 
out the law that the most moral men have the choice of 
offices, the best sportsman, having attained the highest aquatic 
morality, will be entitled to the choice of boats, while he is 
using one, and other privileges pertaining to aquatic codes ; 
but here a counteracting law comes into force. If he attains 
his high degree of perfection through the neglect of other 
structures and functions, and can thus earn very little more 
in his special department, he will be forced into other avenues 
of industry. Meanwhile, also, some distinguished biologist 
may want the land which he occupies, consequently also the 
house erected thereon, for the purpose of conducting agricul- 
tural or biological experiments. It thus appears that an in- 
dividual may have specialities or may not according to his 
ability for earning chronops that is, he may become a scien- 
tist or a philosopher, or both combined. The question now 
arises, How is the oarsman to pay for the use of the boat ] 
The boat is a draft on a certain laud area, and he is actually 


utilising a piece of land while engaged in the exercise of such 
structures as are brought into play during the operation of 
rowing, just on the same principle as he utilises land for his 
food and clothing, and the same method of measurement must 
be adopted. Before discussing this question, the periods of 
development must be considered. In the utilisation of all 
organic materials food, timber, clothing the measurement, 
in the first stage, is by the actual weight of the material ; the 
second stage, the weight of the dry solids ; the third stage, the 
weight of the ashes ; the fourth stage, the weight of the phos- 
phorus. During this process of evolution the approach to the 
perfect standard is gradual Let us suppose in this instance 
that the quantity of land in the boat timber is measured by 
the ashes and for this purpose, it is not necessary to burn 
the boat in order to ascertain its ash constituents. The species 
and weight of the wood being known, and the character of 
the soil on which it grew, the average quantity of ashes 
which the given species of wood will make is the standard 
of measurement. Let us now suppose that it has been 
ascertained by many years of practical experience that the 
average life of a boat is six years of actual use that is, when 
all the hours during which it has been employed are counted, 
the sum is equal to six years. If now a certain oarsman uses 
the boat for such a number of hours as equals six months, 
he must be debited with one-twelfth of the area of land 
which has produced the boat. It may be said that the boat 
also contains iron or steel, perhaps also gold and silver, in its 
construction. Very true ; but this alters no principle, and 
does not complicate the calculations in the least. These 
metals are also drawn from land, and although they can- 
not be reduced to the ash or phosphorus standard of 
measurement, yet all that is required is that they should 
bear some fixed relation to the organic materials, which 
relation must be in proportion to the estimated abundance or 
scarcity of the respective metals. This standard eventually 
overcomes all the objections to the existing standards. 

The above illustration is typical of all industries and tenures 
of office, and from it many important deductions may be 
drawn. The inducement to accept an office is that the officer 


may be able to earn more chronops. The most striking 
features of the situation are : (i) that no individual can 
become the owner of any commodity whatever, and (2) that 
the employments for women must be substantially the same 
as those for men. There can be no inducement for the in- 
dividual to claim ownership in any commodity so long as he 
has access to its use. Every commodity is held by society 
in trust for posterity; and this principle is not altered by 
the fact that the individual may enjoy the exclusive use of 
any commodity. A farmer, for example, when he purchases 
a plough will enjoy its exclusive use, and will be charged 
with the total area of land required for its production. So 
also when an individual purchases a coat or a loaf of bread. 
The principle underlying these cases is, that society finds it to 
be to the advantage of all and to posterity that the individual 
may enjoy the exclusive use so long as no other individuals 
suffer thereby, or are concerned in claiming a share in the 
utility of the commodity. In short, all commodities must 
be perishable so far as posterity is concerned; for it is a 
crime to store up commodities for posterity, because the 
manufacture of such commodities is the most natural method 
for the development of the structures and functions of coming 
generations. Let them but have equal opportunities for 
access to the means of subsistence, and they will not want us 
to hoard up property for them ; their only demand is that 
we exercise our functions, thus perpetuating increased health, 
strength, and wisdom. When I say that all property is 
robbery, I do not include provisions, or such commodities as 
are necessary to supply our temporary necessities. Another 
interesting feature in the situation is, that there is no dualism 
of Socialism and Individualism, This dualism is only an ab- 
stract idea, and has no existence in reality. The economic 
Individualist may be defined as the man who wrings a 
monopoly from the State, and then calls upon it to defend 
the property which he has acquired by plunder. Destroy 
Individualism and the economic State loses all its functions, 
and the structures must therefore also perish. No conception 
of Socialism could have ever existed except as a contrast 
to Individualism, and therefore the Socialistico-Individualistic 


dualism is a mere abstraction, having no existence in natural 
law. The economic State must thus also be a fiction of the 
same character. With reference to the administration of 
justice, economicism has not lived and died in vain if it 
has proved how we can enslave ourselves in the chains of 
Fashiouism. In the scientific State the most moral men 
will be the rulers that is, the men who make the best use of 
the land which they draw on for their support so that scien- 
tific fashionism, or social restraint, will impel all subjects to 
morality, or to imitate the fashions of their rulers. The 
economic ruler is the person who is permitted to draw on the 
largest area of land for his support, so that the social restraint 
of the economic world impels us to immorality. 

Industries which would soon be abolished, and others which 
would be developed, might here be enumerated, but these 
deductions can be so easily made that it is not necessary to 
go into details, the guiding principle being that each struc- 
ture should perform its natural function. I may be permitted, 
however, to mention that, amongst all the institutions in the 
scientific State, the theatre is one of the most moral, for in 
it the performers can exercise an unusually large number of 
their structures and functions ; and a critical audience gains 
immense advantages. It is sometimes said that the theatre 
is an immoral institution on account of the paucity of clothing 
which the actors and actresses wear ; but this, being an ab- 
stract idea, is the exact reverse of scientific truth, and if the 
theory has any value, it only applies to those who have made 
a wreckage of their virtue. Clothing is a hindrance to grace- 
fulness of movement, and obstructs what should be the most 
perfect and attractive structures in the world. It is no 
wonder that people are ashamed to display undeveloped struc- 
tures which are unable to perform their functions. In the 
scientific State, no objection can be raised against engaging 
in a number of employments, because, all tricks and secrets 
of manufacture and trade being abolished, there is nothing to 
be learned in one industry which is not a development of 
principles found in another. The reason why the economic 
man cannot engage in many occupations is because there are 
so many tricks and frauds to be learnt. 


The development of education in the scientific State should 
not be passed without notice. The basis of education, after 
acquiring the ordinary rudiments in the primary schools, is 
to know how to attach ourselves to our mother-earth, from 
which we derive our being and subsistence. Land monopoly 
being abolished, people will settle compactly in favourable 
localities. In a central portion of every locality of convenient 
size there will be a primary school with experimental grounds 
attached, also a gymnasium and other conveniences for de- 
veloping the muscular, mental, and vital structures of the 
children. There will also be a library, museum, &c., for the 
use of the adult members of the school district. There will 
be no advantage in living near the school or other place of 
public resort, for the individual who has to walk, say, two or 
three miles is developing his structures and earning as many 
chronops as he who lives near and spends the same time in 
the library or the gymnasium. Even when the distance is, 
say, twenty miles, and the individual utilises a bicycle, the 
same advantages accrue; and if he has to go hundreds of 
miles by rail, his resting hours may be utilised for the pur- 
pose. This arrangement destroys all value attached to land 
due to advantageous location. A theatre, public hall, factory, 
&c., may be centred in the same locality, if the conditions 
are favourable. The school-teachers should be connected 
with the experimental grounds. As nobody will be engaged 
more than an hour or two daily in one employment, every 
school will have at least three functionaries : (i) the educator, 
who teaches the youths how to think; (2) the mechanist, 
who devotes his attention to the development of the motive 
system; and (3) the biologist, who will have to do with 
vital functions. The earnings of the children, which are now 
usually called prizes and awards, will be paid in chronops 
the same coin with which their professors are paid. In their 
teaching capacity these professors have no connection with 
the State; they can only act as State officials when their 
chronopic earnings entitle them to examine their own pupils 
or those of other professors. The examinations must be 
imperatively uniform throughout all the districts in the State, 
according to arrangements made by the federal authorities. 


Every individual has a right to demand to be examined on 
any subject at such periods as may be arranged by the 
authorities. These remarks, however, only apply to the 
consequent term of our physio-ethic ratio. "With reference 
to the antecedent term, namely, the area of land required 
to produce our chronops, a valuator for the State will be 
required in each local district, who, in his private capacity, 
may also deliver lectures in the school. His duties will be 
exclusively confined to the means of subsistence, and he must 
know the relative abundance or scarcity of all commodities, 
and of the raw materials required for their production. It 
will be his duty to locate factories and other establishments, 
to project railways, telegraphs, telephones, &c., and a special 
branch of his department will be to make accurate estimates 
of the yields of crops, to distribute commodities, and to 
gather statistics pertaining to his department. An important 
branch of biology is dietetics, and a knowledge of chemistry 
is indispensable to the dietetist, and physics become an im- 
portant branch of the mechanical sciences. Naturally, the 
district or primary schools will be feeders for the higher 
institutions of learning, which will be conducted on the same 
principles. All education, mental and physical, should have 
a subjective basis that is, before we commence to expend 
our efforts we should understand the incentive, and then, 
objectively, we should be able to measure the legitimate con- 

The regulation of inventions is an important feature in the 
scientific State, and the same law applies to literary and 
artistic productions. The value of every invention is measured 
by its ability to develop our mental, motive, and vital struc- 
tures and functions. A machine for setting type, for example, 
would have considerable scientific value, for the type-setter 
cannot exercise many functions at the compositor's case, and 
he would therefore demand high chronopic wages to induce 
him to follow the trade, and the occupation is not so healthful 
as out-door employments. Under any circumstances, people 
could not be induced to work more than an hour or two per 
day at this trade. On the other hand, a machine for driving 
nails, for example, would have no chronopic value at all, for 


many important muscles are "brought into play in driving nails 
with a hammer. When the inventor receives credit for his 
invention he has no more control over it, and it becomes 
public property. The same rule applies to all works of litera- 
ture and art. If the author exhibits great inventive genius, 
or even if a work is brilliantly written, the chronopic value is 
correspondingly increased. Good judges in these particulars 
would make excellent editors, for they would select only such 
productions as are worthy of publication ; but a production 
may have chronopic value without being published. I would 
be in favour of attaching little value to knowledge acquired 
by cramming. The exercise of function consists rather in the 
use which one makes of facts than in cramming them into 
one's cranium. True knowledge comes out of us ; it doesn't 
go in. Cramming is the abstract (objective) basis of know- 
ledge ; eduction is the scientific (subjective) basis. 

It is important here to understand the new meaning which 
I have attached to the word philosophy. In PART L, I classi- 
fied it under the abstract method of thinking ; here it embraces 
the harmonious adjustment of all the sciences. The philoso- 
pher plays an important part in the scientific State. To him 
we will be indebted for the just arrangement of chronopic 
values. Although he may have but a superficial knowledge of 
the various sciences, yet he must know how to arrange them 
and classify them according to their importance to trace the 
effects of each science and each form of activity to their effects 
on the means of subsistence and our methods of procuring the 
same. This is rather the reverse order, however. He should 
commence with the means of subsistence, and from this basis 
evolve all the sciences and all human activities. Our sharpest 
and most incisive critics should be the philosophers. 

It may be urged that I have committed a breach of natural 
law in permitting those individuals to live who have fallen 
behind in the struggles for existence that the weaker amongst 
the lower animals perish through starvation before the natural 
lease of their life is expired. This is a most important ques- 
tion pertaining to our inquiry, and although an answer may 
be given by the mention of one word, yet there is no sub- 
ject whose origin is so imperfectly understood. In a word, I 


might say that man is the only religious animal, but this 
statement is imperfect and misleading, because 'our concep- 
tions of religion are just as false as those which we entertain 
with respect to wealth. In defining the temperaments pos- 
sessed by all animals mental, motive, vital I omitted to 
name a system which is of great importance in the economy 
of nature. The systems may be named either (i) to convey 
an idea of the structure, or (2) to convey an idea of the 
function. The names I have chosen direct our attention 
to the function ; the ideas of the structures would be con- 
veyed by the words nervous, osseo-muscular, and intestinal 
systems, instead of mental, motive, and vital. It must not 
be forgotten that each system acts and reacts upon the others 
they are all mutually dependent on each other and in 
their analysis, it is important to classify them with reference 
to their bases. In the ultimate analysis, both the mental and 
the motive system may be characterised as objective, while 
the system of which I am about to speak is the basis of sub- 
jectivity, and in all animals is the source of virtue, which 
must be sharply distinguished from morality. On account of 
the extreme objectivity into which civilised man has fallen, 
no word has yet been discovered to convey the functional 
idea of the subjective system, which furnishes the initial in- 
centive to all legitimate activity. It is a portion of the net- 
work of the nervous system, and the idea of the structure is 
conveyed by the name genitals or genital system. The func- 
tional conception may be expressed by " virtuel system." 
There is as much difference between scientific and abstract 
virtue as between scientific and abstract morality. Although 
the close interdependence of virtue and morality cannot be 
denied, yet these qualities belong to different categories. 
Now, virtue is a quality which belongs to all the lower 
animals, but the development of its characteristics in man 
is true religion. A feature of special importance with re- 
spect to this question is the close historic relation which it 
bears to matters pertaining to our material necessities. Agri- 
culture has always been a non-respectable pursuit, and on the 
same principle it has always been disrespectful to speak 
about the basis of virtue. This law, which pertains alike 


to the material and the spiritual well-being of our race, has 
been a necessity in the evolution of mankind ; for all the 
avenues leading to perdition must be crowded. As the 
means of subsistence must be destroyed for the purpose of 
creating ideal wealth, so pure and true religion must be 
destroyed by that of the impure and orthodox type. This 
law is a necessity of universal evolution ; for science could 
never have originated had man not have become an educated 
animal that is, had he always followed the instincts of his 
nature. The development of abstraction is a natural law in 
the history of mankind. The instincts and intelligence of 
the brute are limited to the rearing of the offspring until the 
young is able to obtain the means of its subsistence; man 
can recognise his offspring during the whole period of life, 
and the evolution of sympathy must keep pace with that of 
intelligence. The brute can organise for the temporary pre- 
servation of the individuals of the living generation; man 
can look into future generations, and sympathy must conform 
with this intelligence. This is religion the evolution of 
brute virtue. Man does not lose his brute virtue by being 
a religious animal'; nay, he develops it. Religion is the 
evolution of family life, and man's affection for his family 
need not abate because he loves all humanity ; nay, it becomes 
intensified. Even our compassion for the brute may grow 
with our affections for our families and our fellow-feeling for 
mankind. Bring me a man with a wrecked virtuel system, 
and I will show you a man without virtue without religion. 
Without this basis all our real pleasures and heroic deeds 
vanish, and our race becomes extinct : strengthen and develop 
it and the opposite results will be inevitable. The impulses 
and instincts which preserve our race cannot be separated 
from those which generate it. And no amount of intelligence 
can be substituted for this subjective basis. 

Following out this train of thought we arrive at the only 
method for the solution of the population problem. Our 
virtue has become a tender plant, and it can only be 
strengthened by the same law as that by which those plants 
which furnish us with the means of our subsistence are 
strengthened. Protection and too much cherishing have 


proved a failure. The question of virtue is important from 
the standpoint that it aptly illustrates what cringent slaves 
to abstract ideas we can become. Our virtuel degeneracy 
may be measured by our adherence to the shame idea, just 
as accurately as our vital degeneracy may be measured by 
the number of cooks, butchers, and grinding-mills. When 
we are permitted to speak about the origin of virtue and 
religion without employing whisperable and circuitous lan- 
guage, and with the same freedom as we now speak about 
our mental or motive temperaments, the population problem 
will be virtually solved. The wildest of all abstractions is 
the idea that our bodies are dotted with shame spots, and 
that we must act as if we had no natural instincts. This 
abstraction has driven us to the most shameful extremes of 
immorality. The stronger our virtue, the greater is our natu- 
ral tendency to display our parts, and the more suggestive of 
posterity the part is, the greater is the desire for such display, 
if the organs are not deformed. If man has attained his high 
state of civilisation by virtue of his having discovered a fig- 
leaf to hide his shame, then the barbarians and the brutes 
must be miserably low creatures for having no shame to hide. 
We must elevate our virtue to the standard of that of the 
brute before we can become truly religious ; and the only way 
to begin is to abolish the quack nostrums of priests and 
medical councils. What dirty mess have our hands been in 
that they must be kid-gloved from the public gaze ? Would 
not ordinary knit hide the shame just as well 1 ? What should 
be the height of our collar that it may hide the shame of our 
neck and our ears 1 What should be the area and density of 
our moustache that it may hide the shame of our lip ? What 
colour should our goggles be to hide the shame of our eyes? 
Should the shame of our blush be hidden by silk or satin 
goods ? Must we hide our perfections in order that sapless 
and deformed mortals may have a pretext for covering their 
shame and their deformities 1 If we look into the question a 
little more closely we can see the effects of another law. Why 
do we gourmandise too much food 1 Because it is scarce, and 
because we are educated to the belief that we live to eat. 
The reason why we breathe too little air is because this most 



valuable of all commodities is abundant. If it were customary 
to breathe nothing but bottled-up Italian air, costing a guinea 
a bottle, the man of guineas would breathe too much ; and if 
our most expensive foods became as abundant as air he would 
merely eat to live, and could scarcely be induced to indulge 
even to this extent. I have seen the most delicious peaches 
so abundant that the owners scarcely regarded them as being 
fit for hogs, while bacon was so dear in the same locality that 
the people imagined they were starving unless they had an 
abundant supply. In the same district hare and squirrel 
were so abundant that they were hardly worth shooting. The 
dwellers bordering on the Niagara Falls do not rise early in 
the morning to gaze on the grandeur of the scenery, as do the 
tourists ; nor does the sublime, inspiring roar of the falling 
waters disturb their slumbers. In the British Museum stands 
the original nude statuary of some of the Greek Gods and 
Goddesses, and artists of both sexes are constantly seen sketch- 
ing these delightful forms of human beings in which none of 
the parts are wanting. Are these artists less virtuous than 
those who never saw a nude statue ? On the very contrary, 
their virtue becomes strengthened just in proportion to the 
success of the sculptor in breathing life into his divine forms 
of art, whereas the modesty of the novice becomes shocked 
at the supposed degradation of the scenery. Even more, the 
virtue of both sexes of artists becomes strengthened by work- 
ing together and discussing the various perfections and imper- 
fections of all parts of these images. If these statues gradu- 
ally grew into real life, the virtue of the artists would be 
correspondingly intensified. Now, if these artists thoroughly 
understood physiology, phrenology, and physiognomy, they 
could relate truth about the history of ancient Greece, even 
though they had never read a single page. When similar 
access can be had to the Apollos and the Venuses who now 
live and walk our streets, true art and science will begin to 
flourish, and not till then. Were the Greeks less virtuous 
than we because they enjoyed no medical councils to prose- 
cute their sculptors for immortalising the most perfect forms 
of our race ? In this respect, the stage presents the most 
virtuous tendency of our day. The human form should be 


the most perfect of all objects, combining the greatest har- 
mony of structure and function, and access to it by men of 
talent and virtue should not be denied. Why should we be 
ashamed to walk on, the street, or sit in the parlour, in the 
same attire as we wear on the stage ? People who insist that 
the ideal should suppress the real should be pronounced, by 
all lovers of science, art, religion, and social reform, to be 
creatures of low and vulgar minds. 

The first step to be taken towards the founding of a science 
of population is to snuff out that prince of humbugs, the 
Medical Council, so that scientists may have a chance to talk 
over these matters without fear and trembling. The theory 
that man can evolve into a shame animal is exploded, just as 
effectually as the theory that he can evolve into a carnivore, 
a cooking animal, an orthodox religionist, an economist, or an 
abstract thinker. Even if we could go through such a process 
of evolution, where does the advantage come in ? What we 
want is men and women whose virtue is so strong and their 
forms so perfect and attractive that they have no shame to be 
hidden. All these questions are evidences of our degeneracy, 
and prove that the more abgtract theories are developed the 
worse they become, the greater waxes mental and social dis- 
cord, and the more shattered and rotten grows our civilisation. 
The Greeks, who made physical exercise the basis of their 
educational system, were far ahead of us, and where have 
there ever existed such ponderous minds ? We have, through 
force of necessity, obtained a vague idea that the social problem 
has something to do with land, or the means of subsistence, 
and yet we have to go back to Moses in order to get 
" original " ideas about land tenures. For the regulating of 
population, I have no firm basis on which a system may be 
founded, for economicism has barred the door against such an 
inquiry. It is for the good of trade that man should be 
regarded as a shame animal; and it is a wonder that the 
government has not pronounced our noses to be an organ of 
shame in order to create an insatiable demand for nose-bags, 
thus opening up a new avenue for manufacture and trade. 
That the protective idea is a pure abstraction is amply proved 
by the fact that a handsome face is our most attractive part, 


and yet there is no special law to protect our cheek from the 
bombardment of a lass. The absence of a special science for 
the regulation of population does not, however, damage my 
system. The chronopic account of the individual may deter- 
mine the age he should attain before marrying, and the 
prospective births could in this way be determined just as 
accurately as the prospective deaths by life insurance com- 
panies. By this method, only the most moral men would be 
permitted to have families, and the most immoral would be 
weeded out. I am convinced, however, that scientific methods 
could be devised by which all individuals would be permitted 
to marry as soon as they arrive at the age of maturity, a 
guarantee being given that the size of the family would be 
regulated by the chronopic earnings, the most moral men thus 
having the largest families. With reference to those who 
have no ambition to struggle for existence, it is neither neces- 
sary that they should marry nor be requested to exercise their 
structures and functions. But social restraint, or Fashionism, 
will be so strong an incentive that institutions for the support 
of idlers need not be dreamt of. Religion, the sentiment of 
hnmanity, will force us to be kind to our unfortunate fellow- 
men. The poor we shall always have with us. 

Some people may draw the inference from the principles of 
Humanitism that the most moral men and women should have 
as many children as possible, so that men should have several 
wives, and women several husbands. This inference is not 
logical, and can only be made from the purely objective stand- 
point. It must not be forgotten that subjectivity is the basis 
of objectivity, and quality the basis of quantity. The family 
must stand between the individual and humanity. There is 
no escape from this conclusion. The devoted, loving wife, 
and the cheerful, loyal family are forms of subjectivity which 
cannot be eliminated. We must rise above the brutes, not 
sink below them. The religious sentiment also inspires in 
the children respect and affection for their parents. Theo- 
retically, the most moral man will have a title to the most 
moral woman, should the ages and temperaments be suitable, 
but as the individual has supreme control in all such matters, 
he is neither bound to live in himself nor in posterity, should 


he think life not worth living. The tendency to equality 
being irresistible, there can ultimately be no social distinctions. 
When a person arrives at the marriagable age, his moral char- 
acter being summed up in figures, these numbers may be 
advertised, and suitable pairs will then enjoy the greatest 
possible facility for making acquaintances and contracting 
marriages. The choice of suitable partners is the bulwark 
of Humanitism. There can exist no struggle for existence 
between the sexes, so that it makes little difference whether 
or not their chronopic earnings belong to the same category. 
Should it be desirable to have only one classification, there 
are ample schemes for attaining this end. Woman is the 
subjective element of mankind, and if man is not worthy of 
our devotions, woman is. 

With reference to standards of measurement a word is 
necessary, although this is not a question of vital importance 
in our inquiry. A chronopic unit may be established by taking 
any original production and in Humanitism every commodity 
is a production of science and art and value it according to 
the relation which it bears to our physio-ethic ratio, say 1000 
chronops, the one-thousandth part thereof therefore being a 
unit. All other commodities may be traced to this basis. 
Any form of human activity which bears no relation to the 
means of subsistence, or our moral ratios, can have no 
chronopic value. If it requires great mental effort and nice 
discernment to work out these relations, so much the better 
for our intellectual development. I am bound, however, by 
the logic of my inquiry to drive scientific principles to their 
logical conclusions ; and this suggests an enlarged basis of 
measurements. Our metric system, being based on an imagi- 
nary line drawn over the earth's surface, is an economic idea. 
What we must have is a standard which will measure the 
progress of humanity, for man is now to be the measure 
of all things, and the trade idea must become a matter of 
minor importance. If I were not bound by the logic of my 
inquiry, I would have some diffidence in discussing this 
question, due to the universal prevalence of the abstract idea 
that the living, and the prospective living, must be plundered 
that the dead may be honoured, venerated, and propitiated. 


We" must either plunder the dead to appease the living, or 
plunder the living to appease the dead. There is no other 
door for escape. The scientist allies himself with posterity 
against our ancestors ; the abstractionist allies himself with 
our ancestors against posterity. To come to the point at 
once, the basis of all measurements is the dust of the dead. 
More strictly speaking, the ultimate standard is the quantity 
of phosphorus in the average human body. The unit of 
length is the diameter of a sphere which contains these ashes 
or this phosphorus. The unit of time is measured by the 
number of units of length which an average person grows in a 
given period. This unit of length must be so arranged that 
it is decimally related to nineteen years (the cycle of the 
moon) or twenty-eight years (the solar cycle). Nineteen 
years make a good basis for the measurement of time, because 
a person approaches maturity at this age. From this unit of 
length, all measurements of weight, capacity, surface, and 
work may be derived, and these again are related to the 
progress of humanity. 

The science of humanitistic industrialism, which corresponds 
to political economy in the abstract category, is quite simple 
and requires little comment. It is not exerted against the 
laws and forces of nature, but in lines parallel with them. 
Scientific wealth cannot be produced by man's working 
against nature ; for this would imply one portion of nature 
working against the whole, which is absurd just as much so 
as it is to expect the hands to prosper by working against the 
whole body. The welfare of the structure as a whole is 
bound up with the welfare of all the parts, due prominence 
being given to each part according to the relation which it 
bears to the whole and each of the other parts. Economic 
wealth can only flourish so long as man is a supernatural 
being, and is not therefore bound by the laws of nature. 
If he is partly natural and partly supernatural, then the 
scientist must know the ratio between his natural and super- 
natural powers, if a ratio can be formed from finite and infinite 
things or numbers. If some people are more supernatural 
than others, this also affects our inquiry, and no basis for 
experimental inquiry can be obtained until the theologian 


answers these questions. The physio-ethic ratio is not com- 
posed of unlike quantities : it is a ratio between land and 
land. In humanitistic industrialism, it is convenient to 
classify the materials and forces utilised in the production of 
wealth. Wealth is produced when a commodity (any material 
or force) is changed or moved in such a manner that it 
becomes more conducive to the fulfilment of man's destiny ; 
for example, when soil becomes food, fish becomes soil, or a 
tree becomes a boat. By this classification wealth may be 
produced without man's agency, and the materials and forces 
at work may be classified as follows : i. Personal force (the 
force exercised by the individual) exerted upon the com- 
modity. 2. Corporate force (that exercised by the united 
action of two or more persons) exerted upon the commodity. 
3. Social l force exerted upon the commodity. 4. Ceter- 
natural 2 forces exerted upon the commodity. This classifica- 
tion gives rise to various combinations ; for instance, personal 
force exerted upon social commodities, ceternatural forces 
exerted upon personal commodities, 3 &c. All forces are 
natural, but I have been obliged to coin the word ceternatural 
to express all other forces, too numerous to be mentioned, 
which are not included in personal, corporate, and social 
forces such as the heat and light of the sun, and all the 
forces in nature apart from man. Matter and force being 
inseparable, the actual condition is force and matter exerted 
upon force and matter ; but sometimes the predominating 
idea is force, and sometimes matter. This classification is 
important, from the fact that it is the mission of science to 
cause work to be performed by the ceternatural forces, except 
when the human forces can be more advantageously employed 
to enable us to fulfil our destiny without violation of natural 
laws. Agriculture, for example, should be conducted almost 
exclusively by the ceternatural forces, even though we can 
exercise our structures and functions by the artificial operations 
of husbandry. 

1 In Hnmanitism, there is no distinction between social and political 
force ; for the State is society in its organised capacit}'. 

- Latin, ceter, the remaining. 

3 The individual is the theoretic owner of those commodities of which 
he enjoys the exclusive use. 


We are now in a position to ascertain whether the British 
Isles are over-populated or not. This question could not be 
fully discussed in our chapter on the science of population, for 
we had to ascertain through later chapters whether or not man 
has evolved into a dress animal, and this is again linked with 
the area of land drawn on to supply us with spirituous liquors. 
With reference to clothing, liquor, and tobacco, the calcula- 
tions can now be easily made. As already shown, 0.60 acre 
are required to support an adult on a vegetarian diet, and iti 
the United Kingdom there are 2.60 acres for each inhabitant, 
reckoning the population in adult equivalents. This leaves a 
balance of 2 acres to be devoted to clothing and luxuries. 
Of these 2 acres, i is cultivated laud, and it is estimated 
that about one-third of the remaining acre could be profitably 
brought under cultivation. Of good arable land there remains 
1.33 acre for each inhabitant, over and above the area re- 
quired for food, without considering that a large percentage 
of the 0.67 acre could be profitably utilised for parks, plan- 
tations, &c., and especially for experimental grounds devoted 
to the raising of hardy fruits, nuts, and other useful agricul- 
tural plants. In making the following calculations, it should 
be borne in mind that they are based on practical and scien- 
tific possibilities, not upon economic theories. Considering 
the difficulty in estimating the length of time it would take 
to change from one habit to another, very accurate calcula- 
tions cannot be expected, but so long as liberal allowances 
are made, there can be no scope for criticism. In changing 
from an eponomic to a scientific diet, much depends upon the 
mental condition of the subject. If he is a scientist, and is 
therefore thoroughly convinced that science is no humbug, 
the change may be made almost instantaneously ; but to the 
economic man, who may entertain strong suspicions as to the 
efficacy of scientific principles, the time may vary between six 
months and a year, and if the physical conditions are also 
unfavourable, two or three years may be necessary. It will 
not do to abandon the consumption of meat without at the 
same time making a radical change in the remaining portion 
of the ration. Some economic vegetarians are of opinion that 
the evolution from meat-eating to the scientific or raw-food 


ration must be made through economic or cooked-food vege- 
tarianism. This is a grave error, and the theory has been 
the source of much mischief. As for clothing, even taking 
economic man as he is, he would be much improved in health 
and strength if he went five or six months of the year without 
clothes, or at most with the barest apology for clothing, 
taking our English climate as the basis, although the same 
estimate would apply to colder countries. With one or two 
years' preparation, 80 or 90 per cent, of our population 
would become more vigorous by going three hundred days in 
the year with little or no covering, and all liability to catch 
colds would vanish, other health arrangements being properly 
attended to. I shall suppose, however, that physical exercise 
is made the basis of education, which means that the rising 
generation would wear nothing but gymnastic suits, if they 
wore clothing at all, and I shall give them two suits in the 
year a light one, weighing % lb., and a heavier one for winter 
wear weighing i lb., both being manufactured from wool. 
This estimate would also be a liberal average for the whole 
population, for many would not wear out one suit in a year. 
Taking the Oxford down sheep as the basic breed, a fleece 
will weigh 14 Ibs. of washed woo], and it will require five 
large sheep to utilise as much land as the area drawn 
on to support the bullock, as discussed in our chapter on 
population, namely, 4.16 acres. Allowing 20 per cent, waste 
in the fleece, we get about 14 Ibs. of wool per acre, or suffi- 
cient clothing to support seven men, so that 0.14 acre will 
be sufficient to clothe one man. Coming now to .our drink 
bill, our statistics show that our beverages in the forms of 
beer, wine, and spirits are equivalent to 2 bushels of barley 
for each inhabitant per annum that is, the equivalent of 4 
gallons of proof spirits. This quantity of barley contains 
sufficient nutriment to make a sustaining food ration for 
about two months, the consumer being an adult. Our yield 
of barley is about 32 bushels per acre, so that the average 
Englishman imbibes one-sixteenth of an acre of land per 
annum. Considering that about one-third of our population 
are either total abstainers or very moderate drinkers, it will 
be seen that it does not take an inveterate "boozer" to 


imbibe as many acres of alcohol as the area required for 
clothing or even for food. When a man drinks more land 
than he eats, and when it is considered that the area drunk 
is utilised for destroying his functions, instead of developing 
them, the sham of the abstract theories of land titles is made 
plain, and the necessity for a scientific basis becomes evident 
to all rational and unbiassed minds. So far as tobacco is 
concerned, I can find no estimates of the yields per acre in 
the morbid attempts made to grow it in England, but the 
averages for the United States, which I have before me in the 
agricultural report issued by the American government, will 
serve our purpose, for if we import tobacco, the transaction, 
like that of all others, is merely an exchange of land for land 
or plot for plot. The annual average in the American 
tobacco-growing States for the past ten years is 738 Ibs. of 
cured product per acre, and if we take the average con- 
sumption to be 5 or even 10 Ibs. per head, the area of land 
drawn on is so small that it does not materially affect our 
calculations. I may also add that the average yield of lint 
cotton in the cotton-growing States, as given in the same 
report, 1 is 183 Ibs. per acre, against our produce of 14 Ibs. of 
wool from the same area, so that the acreage drawn on to 
supply us with cotton clothing becomes correspondingly re- 
duced. Now, when we consider that the area of land required 
to support an adult in food, clothing, liquor, and tobacco 
cannot exceed 0.80 acre, there is no necessity in discussing 
the question of bed-clothing and minor articles ; as for carpets, 
they are a positive injury to health, and are only used to dis- 
play the extent of our robbery. Making the most liberal 
allowance, one acre of land will be the utmost quantity re- 
quired for the total support of an adult, so that there still 
remains very nearly an acre per head of good arable land 
which nobody can want or use, and has therefore no value. 
Even after making liberal allowance for working horses, 
which, for a time, would be required for tilling the land and 
other purposes, and which would require little or no more 
land than that utilised to keep us in beverages and tobacco, 

1 Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture, 1888. Government Print- 
ing Office, Washington, B.C. 


there still remains a surplus of land, so that by abolishing 
these luxuries, which have no scientific value, there would 
still be at least an acre of good arable land for each inhabitant 
over and above the area required to supply him with all the 
necessaries of life. With one or two exceptions, the United 
Kingdom is absolutely the most densely populated country in 
the world, and probably also relatively that is, we have a 
greater population in proportion to the productiveness of the 
soil, so that, if other countries also lived scientifically, we 
could not export any agricultural produce. 

I desire to lay special stress on the results of these calcu- 
lations, because they illustrate an economic principle which 
has not yet been recognised by our abstract thinkers, and 
proves beyond the possibility of all doubt that economic 
wealth is based on scarcity. This principle is aptly illustrated 
by a discussion which I had a short time ago with a disciple 
of Henry George, the champion of the "single-tax" theory, 
or evolutionary Socialism. Said he : " When the land belongs 
to the landlords, and if its value increases ^10,000.000, this 
increment goes into the pockets of the landlords ; but if the 
land belonged to the State, the money would go into the 
pockets of the people, so that they would be richer by this 
amount." To this statement I made the following answer: 
"If the land belonged to the State, and if the increase in 
value amounted to the sum you mention, the people would 
be poorer than before, and their maximum wealth would be 
attained when the value of the land decreased so enormously 
that it had no value at all." Of course, he pitied me on account 
of my stupidity. The blunder which he made was in his at- 
tempt to enrich the people by producing for them ^10,000,000 
worth of scarcity, but he can surely be excused on account of 
his stupidity, for our illustrious political economists have all 
committed the same blunder. There can only be one con- 
clusion, namely, that scientific wealth increases in exact pro- 
portion to the decrease of economic wealth. Under scientific 
wealth, our isles could double, or even treble, its population 
without depending upon foreign resources, and every inhabitant 
would be rich, happy, and prosperous, while under economic 
wealth we cannot support half of our present population, and 


a large majority are poverty-stricken, miserable, and rebellious. 
The dualism of science and economicism is now made plain 
the agricolo-economic dualism. Agriculture cannot be encour- 
aged except at the expense of trade. If we grow all our own 
articles of consumption, we cannot import them; that is certain. 
"But," exclaims the economist, "it is an export trade which 
we want, and the foreigner will then be compelled to send us 
the value in money." That is to say, all nations are going to 
send us all their gold and silver, leaving none to settle their 
home balances, and we are going to utilise all this bullion, of 
which there are 500 cubic metres of gold and 18,000 cubic 
metres of silver in the world. These quantities would make 
more trinkets than we would want to carry, and would prac- 
tically destroy the value of these precious metals. It re- 
quires no argument to see this fallacy. If foreign nations 
payed our exports in matches we would at once see the ab- 
surdity of the trade theory, but we are educated to believe 
that gold is impregnated with some supernatural principle. 
What a blessing it is that gold is scarce ! otherwise we might 
have no means of displaying our crimes of robbery. Again, 
we must have ironclads to defend our commerce, which means 
that we must be eternally preparing for war, or fighting 
battles, in order to defend monopoly, to furnish respectable 
employment for the hounds of war, to strengthen tottering 
governments, and to remove our surplus populations. If we 
must encourage trade, we are obliged to ruin agriculture and 
remove the scientist; if we must encourage agriculture, we 
must bankrupt monopoly and trade and remove the econo- 
mist. It is well known, moreover, that our customs and 
excises are raised almost exclusively by tax on such com- 
modities as science condemns commodities which demoralise 
the people and incite them to crime. One portion of the 
community perishes for want of adequate employment and 
through licentious living, while another portion suffers the 
same fate in their vain endeavours and keen struggles to force 
the unfittest to survive. A critical writer in one of our lead- 
ing magazines * says : " Our peerages are frequently lapsing 
for want of descendants, and it is not the wealthy rector, but 
1 Westminster Review for March 1889. 


the poor curate, who is notorious for a numerous family." 
This simply means that semi-starvation is more conducive to 
virtue than is gluttony. Some imbeciles parade their " moral 
restraint" and urge the same virtue on the part of the poor 
in the restriction of their families ; but it would be well to 
inquire whether this motive has its source in pride, impo- 
tence, or philanthropy. 

In a previous chapter I stated that the removal of land 
monopoly led to the destruction of all monopolies, including 
monopoly of the conscience. We have seen how it leads to 
the abolition of monopoly in the products of the soil, and it 
is now in order to discuss the effects on the conscience. la 
order to get at the root of this question, it is necessary to un- 
derstand the essential origin of priestcraft. Let us go back 
to a state of society in which there lived three persons with 
their families who obtained their livelihood by fishing. The 
names of these persons are A, B, and C. Says A to B : 
" Don't you see that I am a stronger man than you, and am 
able to drown you in that fish-pond ?" B answers : "I know 
it, but please don't." A : "Well, I'll tell you what I'll do ; 
you give me a good big fish every day, and I'll call you a free 
man." B naturally assents to this proposition, because he 
desires to live, and the arrangement suits A, because he would 
rather eat fish than strain himself by catching them. Now, 
B hardly ever gets to see A, and is led to believe that he is 
a very great and strong man, and is even growing stronger, 
especially after he comes to demand two fishes for his daily 
ration. B has now to struggle very hard to catch fish 
enough for himself and A, and when the wind blows and 
capsizes his canoe with its contents of fish, he logically arrives 
at the conclusion that he hears the voice of a greater man 
than A, and that this great man can be appeased by offerings 
of fish. C now steps upon the scene ; he has a dream, and 
climbs up to the mountain-top early in the morning, where 
he confers with the great man whose breath upsets B's boat. 
Accordingly C goes to B and says: "I had a talk this 
morning with the great man whose voice upsets your boat, 
and this powerful and all-wise being told me that I was to 
get the fish which you sacrifice to him, and that I was to. 


offer up the sacrifices myself; but the condition is that you 
must give me two fishes daily, one for myself and the other 
for the sacrifice, and if you hear the voice calling very angrily 
and upsets your boat every day, you will then owe me four 
fishes, two for myself and two for sacrifices." B, who is very 
desirous of appeasing the wrath of this great being who 
dwells in the skies, naturally assents to this proposal, and the 
contract is completed. We have now two functionaries, 
namely, A, the State ; C, the priest : B representing the labour- 
ing classes. It is now evident that when every man is obliged 
to catch his own fish, none of these monopolies can have 
origin, and when all incentive to priestcraft is removed, the 
priest must go : the structure cannot hang together after the 
function is gone. To continue the illustration, which depicts 
actual realities : if A and C kept aloof from each other, they 
would both soon rust out, and B would then be monarch of 
all he surveyed ; but they get into a wrangle about the 
division of the surplus fishes, namely, all which are left after 
B gets enough for his bare subsistence, by -which means they 
keep one another from rusting, and their existence depends 
upon their success in keeping B convinced that they are 
supernatural animals, and are therefore able to drown him 
eternally in the fish-pond. When B ceases to believe this 
doctrine, he finds that he is a stronger man than A and C 
put together, and so orders them to catch their own fish ; but 
they are not able to do so, not having learned the business, 
and having almost exhausted the fish pond. A battle ensues 
in which B becomes king, D becomes priest, and then his- 
tory repeats itself. This is human history in a nutshell. 

In the evolution of sociology, the economic State should 
also be attacked from the metaphysical standpoint. In the 
discussion of this phase, I accept Comte's "Law of the Three 
States," namely, that human knowledge first passes through 
the theological stage, in which volition emanates from an 
external source, then through the metaphysical stage, in 
which volition resides in the object, but exists independent 
of it; and, finally, through the positive or scientific stage, 
in which these abstractions disappear, and the human mind 
is satisfied with an investigation of the laws of phenomena. 


Dr. Bridges forcibly illustrates this law of evolution in the 
following language : " Take the phenomenon of the sleep 
produced by opium. The Arabs are content to attribute it 
to the 'will of God.' Moliere's medical student accounts 
for it by a soporific principle contained in the opium. The 
modern physiologist knows that he cannot account for it at 
all. He can simply observe, analyse, and experiment upon 
the phenomena attending the action of the drug, and classify 
it with other agents analogous in character." Let us apply 
this law to the economic State, the " soporific principle " 
being Eoyalty. The theological idea that political volition 
emanates from the skies has vanished from the minds of all 
rational men, but the State still exists by virtue of an 
inherent principle called Royalty, which serves the same 
purpose as the old theological dogma. There is this differ- 
ence, however, that the theological idea, emanating from 
unity of volition, tended to greater harmony of thought; 
in the metaphysical stage, Avhich. now predominates, some 
people locate Eoyalty in the crown, others in the wearer of 
the crown, while others confuse it with ancient traditions 
and usages, these passing from monarch to monarch even 
when an ancient branch of the Royal family becomes extinct. 
We can thus see that the " soporific principle " of Royalty 
loses, through dispersion, the intensity of theological sopori- 
fication; and the clinging to the institutions of the past is 
a theological phase of metaphysics. Royalty inspires loyalty. 
The sluggishness of the evolutionary process is exemplified 
by the change from monarchical to democratic institutions 
such as in the United States of America. In the Aristocracy, 
where the rulers are removed from the masses, and where 
the dispensers of justice are robed in awe-inspiring fashion, 
the royal and loyal principle naturally abounds, there being 
an imitation of theological inspiration and reserve; but in 
the Democracy, where the humblest elector may booze with 
the highest officers of State, there still lingers the " soporific 
principle " the confused idea that there is something super- 
natural somewhere in the State. And yet it does not seem 
that the mission of Social Democracy is to dispel the 
"soporific principle" in politics; for the Socialistic idea is 


that the State can accomplish anything or everything, despite 
the fact that, in the opinion of the Socialists, it is a purely 
human institution. That human institutions can perform 
supernatural functions is a dualism which the Socialists have 
not solved. It is necessary to discuss this phase of the 
economic State, for a scientific basis cannot be firmly estab- 
lished until the metaphysical figment is dissipated from the 
minds of men. 

If we now take a critical glimpse of the whole situation, 
we shall find that the scientific and abstract methods are 
diametrically opposed in every particular. The abstractionist 
commences with the idea and sticks to it. It is therefore 
natural that the mind should be crammed with abstract 
theories, which form the basis of education, that education 
should be free, that mental employments should be most 
respected, and that all pursuits which pertain to physical 
occupations or to the means of subsistence should be despised. 
Now, the Humanitist also aims at mental power, but his 
method of attaining this object is the exact reverse, and may 
be classified in the following order: i. Land. 2. Vitality 
(vegetal and animal). 3. Motivity. 4. Nervosity. In the 
abstract conception, this order being reversed, there is no 
basis for evolution ; for nerve functions cannot be perfected 
without attention being paid to the preceding requisites in 
the order named. This abstraction is as old as theology, and 
could never have originated save through the illusion that 
nerve functions alone are immortal that a function can be 
perpetuated after the structure disappears. The motto seems 
to be : " With all your saving, save the function ; and as for 
the earthy and earthly structure, it makes little difference 
what becomes of that." 

In the light of the scientific State, let us now discuss some 
of the weaknesses of the institutions into which we may more 
or less ranidly evolve. We should bear in mind that existing 
institutions are a muddled conglomeration of Individualism 
and Socialism. In our own case, we are Socialistic with 
reference to our Poor Laws, our Education Act, our Established 
Church, our Land Act, our Artisan's Dwelling Act, and our 
Librarian Act. The political question of the day is whether 


we shall develop the Socialistic or the Individualistic phase 
of our institutions, the strong tendency being in the line of 
Socialism. The Individualist, as we have seen, is the man 
who hires A to work his plot, hires B, C, D, &c., to labour on 
other people's plots, and then, after piling up the products for 
himself and his "heirs and assigns for ever," establishes an 
institution called the State to protect his booty. It requires 
no arguments to show that the further development of this 
phase must aggravate our social grievances, and must end 
in suicide. But there is another phase of Individualism, or 
rather affected Individualism, known as the "single-tax" 
theory, propounded by Henry George and his followers. This 
authority gives the land to the State it should be said that 
he gives the State a monopoly of the land, for his ideal State 
does not hold it in trust for posterity and then gives the 
individual unlimited scope to rob the State of that portion of 
the land called the products. He assumes that the individual 
has unlimited right to labour, and engage others to labour, 
on all the plots which his strength can command. In Georgic 
economics, the individual is permitted to take all the fish out 
of the pond, leaving the pond itself for the State ; or, the 
individual gets the milk and the State gets the cow. More- 
over, the fish-pond, or the cow, must, at the same time, con- 
stantly increase in value, for it is upon this source that the 
State depends to meet the ever-increasing wants of the growing 
population. Such a violent dualism will solve itself without con- 
sulting Georgics. Again, the object of Henry George is to open 
up the land for the people to give them free access to the land, 
so that they may be able to employ themselves in agriculture 
should they not be satisfied with the current rate of wages. In 
this manner, he aims at raising wages and thus benefiting the 
labourers. These objects are precisely what his scheme will 
fail to accomplish; for (i) he does not make the land free, 
for the individual has to pay the full rent or tax to the State, 
instead of to the landlord, and if the State does not exact as 
much as the landlord, it acts unjustly towards the people ; 
(2) labourers cannot be benefited all round by high wages, 
for this implies that commodities must be scarce, and it 
requires a supernatural effort to comprehend how labourers 



can be benefited by scarce commodities. A demand for 
labour can have no other meaning than a scarcity of com- 
modities. If a fraction of the labouring classes can be bene- 
fited by high wages, this is inconsistent with the " solidarity " 
of the labourers. Henry George also exempts the products of 
labour from taxation, all the State revenues being derived 
from the land. In other words, he exempts all booty and 
plunder, and raises his taxes from the exhausted inheritance 
of mankind. Moreover, he attempts to drive the poor man, 
who is not satisfied with his wages, into agriculture, without 
having any knowledge of or experience in agricultural pursuits, 
and if he has capital enough to build a shanty and commence 
operations, his money is sunk, and when wages rise again in 
his trade, he will abandon his plot, and thus bring agriculture 
into greater disgrace. This economist apparently fails to see 
that there is keen competition in agriculture, as well as in the 
trades, and if a labourer is induced to abandon his trade and 
engage in agriculture, the inference is that the latter is the 
more profitable. Any appreciable development of Georgic 
"Individualism" can only lead to a speedy reaction. The 
weaknesses of revolutionary Socialism now remain to be seen. 
Amongst all labourers, both Socialists and Trades-Unionists, 
the motto is " The dignity of labour." The mental is subjected 
to the physical, the learned professions and other intellectual 
pursuits being merely things to be tolerated may be useful, 
but not necessary. This theory leads to two absurdities. 
i. It infers the right to labour, the individual being per- 
mitted to labour on other people's plots and appropriate the 
products, which is Individualism, not Socialism. 2. It makes 
the individual an instrument in the creation of manufacture 
and trade, instead of making these the instruments in the 
amelioration of mankind. If these economists regarded labour 
as an instrument for developing our structures, they Avould 
have the basis for the evolution of a sounder system of 
economics; but they still cling to the division of labour, 
which means the straining some structures and the atrophy 
of others, thus developing a puny and deformed manhood. 
They aim at bettering the condition of the labourers by 
raising wages, or making commodities scarce, which fallacy 


I have already pointed out. When commodities are plentiful 
wages must vanish. Wages and the "dignity of labour" can 
only be enhanced by some method of making abundant com- 
modities scarce, which is an absurdity. The producers make 
them abundant, and the non-producers, who have power to 
draw on the products, make them scarce. This dualism has 
led to an inflated gratification of human desires, and hence 
to the social condition which now exists. The Socialistic 
method is, that all individuals must become producers, and 
that they must also be instrumental in making the products 
of their own labour scarce ; in other words, they must both 
produce and consume large quantities of commodities. It 
will not do to restrict the consumption, for this restraint 
would tend to destroy wealth, labour, and wages, all of 
which must be increased. In a recent public debate, held in 
St. James's Hall, London, between Henry George and H. M. 
Hyndman, the latter gentleman, who is one of the ablest 
of the Socialistic leaders, stated that under the Socialistic 
regime labourers would not require to work more than two 
hours daily. This statement undermines his whole system ; 
because, in the first place, the scheme would restrict the pro- 
duction of wealth, individual and national, for, according to 
Socialistic economics, all wealth is produced by labour, so 
that the more labour the more wealth, and consequently also 
the more wages. Even if this end were attained, the moral 
effects would be most disastrous, for if economic men were 
obliged to work only two hours daily, they could not be pre- 
vented from rushing into all manner of wickedness, even if 
every man, woman, and child in the State were appointed a 
special constable, or organised into an army for the special 
purpose of restraining crime and preserving law and order. 
If the Socialistic regime were long in operation men would 
degenerate mentally without improving physically. Men can 
never improve physically under a minute division of labour ; 
and when all intellectual incentive or competition is also 
removed, they will rapidly degenerate, eventually leaving the 
world in possession of the brutes. It is the scheme of the 
Socialists to remove all competition, while Henry George is 
a believer in the efficacy of this incentive. If man had 


nothing to struggle for he would cease to exist; and all 
Individualistic forms of struggling are those of a miserable 
pack of robbers, cutting each other's throats for possession 
of the proceeds of their plunder. By all means let us have 
competition fair, just, and honest competition but let 
us compete for morality and virtue, and not for vice and 
spoils. In the Socialistic State, there being a multiplicity of 
officials, all must live in a manner suitable to the dignity of 
their office that is, they must have power to draw on large 
areas of land for their support; and here will be a dualism 
between the dignity of officialism and the " dignity of labour." 
If labour becomes the more dignified, nobody would want to 
be an official, and a law must be passed to force certain 
classes of the community to be rulers, and this would give 
rise to the gravest forms of tyranny. On the other hand, 
should it be decided that officialism is the more dignified, 
everybody would want to be an official, and, in the absence 
of State laws or regulations, the least cunning members of the 
community would be obliged to labour ; then we would have 
the same conditions which now exist. The ultimate weak- 
ness in all the demagogues who affect to be the champions of 
labour and the same weakness is also found in the champions 
of Individualism is that their theories are profoundly objec- 
tive. They merely aim at bettering the material condition of 
the community, or some portion thereof, and even in this they 
have proved themselves to be miserable failures. Their little 
schemes of affected subjectivity have been as false as those of 
their objectivity. When our true subjective nature is once 
discovered and acted upon, no such thing as false objectivity 
can exist. All attempts to better our material condition must 
fail so long as we entertain false conceptions with respect to 
our spiritual nature. A true and lasting solution of the social 
problem can only be effected through what comes out of us, 
not through what is crammed in. The kingdom of Heaven 

O O 

is within us. 

All these contradictions and weaknesses are evaded in 
Humanitism, and the whole range of political economy is 
brought into unity and harmony. In humanitistic industrial- 
ism there are many details to be discussed which are beyond 


the scope of this work. However, I shall here consider a few 
objections which may arise. It may be asked how many 
people know those laws of nature which they are called on 
to obey. This question may be answered by asking another. 
How many people know the 25,000 laws contained in our 
statute-books, for the disobedience of which we are all held 
responsible 1 And yet these are a very insignificant fraction 
of the laws we are obliged to obey. How many of our best 
lawyers and judges know the one-hundredth part of our 
laws ? Through disobedience of human laws, the most 
moral men are essentially those who suffer ; but through dis- 
obedience of natural laws, only the most immoral can suffer 
and become extinct, which is quite consistent with the 
law of evolution. Human laws being invariably adverse to 
natural laws, it must of necessity follow that the most dis- 
obedient with respect to the former are the most moral men. 
It is virtually impossible for us to perform moral actions 
without disobeying human laws or committing a breach 
of social etiquette, which is, in many instances, the most 
stringent of all our laws. This is a necessary condition in the 
progress of universal evolution. Natural laws can be under- 
stood by logical deductions from principles, so that the best 
reasoners are those who must and should survive. Human 
laws, written or unwritten, have no logical connection, and 
the conjecturer is more apt to escape punishment than the 
reasoner. The only logical conclusion which the scientific 
reasoner can arrive at is this, that if he sees a human law 
stringently enforced, disobedience thereto implies conformity 
with some law of nature. Even for the most revolting crimes, 
the real perpetrators escape punishment. Obedience to natu- 
ral laws implies the extinction of all other laws, human and 
divine. Another objection to our physio-ethic ratios may be 
raised with respect to the absolute morality of the man who 
draws on the smallest area of land for his support, other con- 
ditions remaining the same. This question may be illustrated 
by the difference in productive capacity of apples and straw- 
berries, and it is well to bear this is mind, for it will cover 
all other apparent difficulties that may arise. The difficulty 
here is not in giving an answer, but in giving all the answers. 


i. Apples being less productive here than strawberries, it 
does not follow that the same rule holds good in all countries 
with which exchanges may be made. 2. If the man who eats 
berries achieves the same results as the man who eats apples, 
the inference is that the former are equally nutritious, or 
otherwise suited to the consumer's organs and their functions, 
and if identical results can be produced by the utilisation of 
smaller areas of land, the law of morality is more strictly 
obeyed from two standpoints : (i) that the berry -bushes must 
have greater vitality, or (2) they are better adapted for in- 
tensive cultivation. 3. If we do not know whether berries 
or apples are the better adapted to our organs and their func- 
tions, what then ? Science is dumb on this point ; but, in the 
first place, a continuation of the experiment would enlighten 
us on the subject. Again, we must have apples because they 
keep fresh all the year round, and we know that fresh fruit 
is better than dried. This leads to another question, namely, 
Can berries be kept fresh for mostly a whole year ? That 
they could be kept fresh depends upon the character of 
the labour required, and how much a person can earn while 
engaged in that labour, which is a matter of chronopic ar- 
rangement. It will also depend upon the inducements offered 
by the State for inventing a process by which berries may be 
kept fresh, or the inducements offered for demonstrating that 
a proposed preserving process is not effective. 4. It is not 
necessary to separate apples from berries in calculating the 
area of land. For instance, the fruit-grower, if he thinks he 
can gain an advantage, may grow strawberries under rasp- 
berry-bushes, and raspberry-bushes under apple-trees, so that 
the quantity of fruit per acre will determine the results, not 
the quantity of each kind separately. If the grower obtains 
too large a quantity at the expense of quality, he can gain 
nothing. 5. Should any variety of fruit which is very ex- 
cellent in quality, 1 but defective as a yielder, be regarded 
as worthy of being perpetuated, it may be given to the in- 
dividual to be tested, under such conditions that the loss 
of land area will be compensated by the value of the 

1 It should here be borne in mind that there is a wide difference between 
scientific and economic ideas of quality. 


test. This is a just arrangement, for such tests are 
beneficial to the whole community. All such matters 
will be regulated by custom. No objection can be raised 
which can destroy the absolutely just and moral character 
of our physio-ethic ratios ; and it may also be added, which 
will be discussed in a later chapter, that if man is naturally 
an apple-eating, rather than a strawberry-eating, animal, there 
is a basis for evolution, for the necessary conditions exist for 
this process. Another objection may be raised, to the effect 
that in the scientific State there is scope for all manner of 
frauds. He who has arrived at this conclusion is not a logi- 
cal reasoner. The leading blunder which he commits is the 
inference that the scientific, like the economic, State is a 
necessary evil, whereas the direct reverse is the case. Even 
were every individual perfectly trustworthy, the necessity for 
the scientific State is not diminished. It is necessary to know 
the productive capacity of the soil, measured by the yield of 
crops, in order to ascertain the extent of population which 
the country can sustain, and not specially for the purpose of 
ascertaining how much a person eats or drinks, although the 
one estimate is logically connected with the other. By the 
slightest attention to this question, we shall see that estimates 
may be made in two ways, the one being a check upon the 
other, i. The amount of produce which a given area yields 
may be estimated by reckoning the quantity of pounds, 
bushels, or tons measured when the crops are harvested. 
2. If every housekeeper had a memorandum of all the eatable 
commodities consumed by the members of the household or 
family, the sum of all these memoranda must represent the 
produce consumed by all the individuals in the State. There 
being no money, there will be here a double check : (i) the 
books in the distribution offices will show the sales made to 
each individual, and (2) the individual must keep an account 
of his receipts and disbursements. In this manner, all com- 
modities can be traced. When people's desires are few, the 
keeping of such accounts will be a trifling business. Another 
objection may here be raised, namely, that people do not go 
to the distribution stores for all the articles they consume, 
much of the products growing in their own gardens, or mauu- 


factured on their own premises. Let us suppose a case in 
which it may be considered possible to perpetrate the greatest 
fraud. Farmer A has a field of wheat and it must here be 
borne in mind that every commodity belongs to society, and 
that the individual can own nothing, except theoretically, as 
previously pointed out and he desires to defraud society of a 
portion of the yield. In his attempts to do so he has only 
two courses : (i) to under-estimate, and (2) to over-estimate 
the actual yield. For a clear conception of this question, we 
must here again suppose a theoretic basis, namely, that the 
wheat, which belongs to society, must be deposited in a store- 
house under the control of the valuator, and then purchased 
back by A, the producer ; or, rather, that portion is purchased 
back which A requires for his support and that of his family. 
This plan, however, is not followed out in practice; for A, 
instead of actually delivering a portion of the wheat, consumes 
it from his own granary ; but by the theoretic basis we can 
understand the question more clearly. Let us suppose that 
the actual yield of his field of wheat is 100 bushels, this being 
the estimate which the State requires for the purpose of as- 
certaining the population to be sustained. Now, if A wishes 
to perpetrate a fraud, he must send in a higher estimate, say 
no bushels, or a lower, say 90 bushels. In the first place, it 
is the duty of the valuator to know as closely as possible the 
productive capacity of all qualities of land, and the dietetist 
will know within a small fraction how much a person can 
consume, and as A's accounts will show the kinds of work 
he has been engaged in, this estimate is facilitated ; for the 
severer the physical labour, the greater will be the rations 
consumed. The valuator's accounts, as well as A's, will show 
the quantities of commodities purchased, and the balance of 
the rations must therefore have been produced by A. Here 
are two checks on A's fraudulent intent. But I will now 
even suppose that these checks do not exist. First, suppose 
A's fraudulent estimate to be no bushels, what then? If the 
valuator demands this quantity, where is A to get his extra 
10 bushels? All that he can say is that he has consumed it. 
Very good ; then he has drawn on more land for his subsist- 
ence than if he had sent in an honest estimate, and his physio- 


ethic ratio would be against him. Again, let us suppose that 
his fraudulent estimate now is 90 bushels. In this case, his 
piece of land has produced a lower yield than that of his 
honest neighbours, and consequently he is not so well paid 
for his results. Let us suppose another case. Two farmers, 
B and C, conduct their operations on different principles. B 
tills his land very industriously, works hard to keep down, the 
weeds, and raises, say, 30 bushels per acre. C cultivates or 
produces a hardy variety of grain which exterminates the 
weeds, no tillage operations being therefore required, for the 
grain grows just as weeds now grow, but his yield is only 20 
bushels per acre. Some will here say that, by the logic of 
my own system of morality, B is the more moral man. This 
conclusion is not logical ; for, in the first place, C may have 
exercised his functions more in the studio or in the gymnasium 
than B has done in the field, and will also have earned more 
by producing his hardy variety of wheat than B has saved 
by drawing on less land for his support. This is a matter 
of chronopic adjustment, and will be regulated to suit the 
requirements of the times. The man who has come to the 
conclusion that there is room for fraud in the scientific State 
has made another illogical deduction. He has drawn the 
inference that agriculture, in the ultimate analysis, is a 
manual occupation engaged in by men of low mental calibre, 
whereas the whole world finally becomes an experimental 
plot conducted by biologists, chemists, and geologists, and 
everything produced will be the result of some experiment. 
These are not the men who will bring science into disre- 
pute by robbing society of a dinner or two yearly. It may 
be urged, however, that there is still scope for fraud in 
the consequent term of our physio-ethic ratios. An answer 
may here be given from two standpoints : (i) the State officers, 
or the examining body, can only be composed of the most 
moral men and women who are above suspicion, and (2) they 
are tied by their own precedents. The latter statement, how- 
ever, is only operative to a limited extent. When people 
rush too headstrong into a few employments, the reason 
must be that the chronopic list is badly arranged, so that 
the State will be compelled to regulate it in such a manner 


that all the avenues of industry will be equitably adjusted. 
In this manner, the individual can arrange his future plans 
without awaiting the results of State action. There is 
another check by which the examinations may be practically 
taken out of the hands of the State. I refer to matters of 
appeal. Should a board of examiners fail to give satisfaction 
to an individual, he can appeal to unofficered judges on the 
following principle. A person becomes a State officer by 
virtue of his excellence in a group of branches. Now, it is 
evident that there will always be unofficered individuals who 
will have a higher standing in one or more departments of this 
group, and they will be eligible as judges of appeal within 
their respective departments. It does not therefore follow 
that appeal judges are officers of State. Viewed from any 
standpoint whatever, the scientific State is absolute security 
against all forms of fraudulent practices; but my system 
should not be held responsible for any forms of indiscretion 
which may creep into the minds of economic men during the 
transition from the economic to the scientific State. Another 
objection may be urged against my law of marriage. It 
should be borne in mind that civilisation is not yet prepared for 
a science of population. This must be the latest of all the social 
sciences ; for there is room in the world for all the population 
which can arrive for many centuries to come. It is a natural 
law that economicism should tend to depopulate a country 
instead of populating it, as the champions of economic theories 
have been attempting to convince us. The next stage of 
evolution will be the restriction of our inordinate desires, not 
a restriction of population, i.e., providing we are not des- 
tined to pass through a mock trial of Socialism. When we 
begin to see that true wealth is based on abundance, not on 
scarcity, the natural consequence will be a curbing of our 
immoral desires. When I assert that the moral character 
of the individual may decide the age at which he should 
marry, it may be said that the faculties of some people do 
not develop until middle age, say forty years, and that such 
people should marry at the age of twenty-five or thirty, 
which is an absurdity. This reasoning is illogical, and arises 
from a misapprehension of the first principles of Humanitism. 


It should not be forgotten that structure is taken as the basis 
or measurement of function, so that the first object is to have 
perfectly developed structures and organs ; when these are 
present, the functions will be a matter of necessity. A per- 
son's structures can be accurately measured when he attains 
full physical development, and for the accomplishment of this 
object the burden of work and exercise will fall on the young, 
while the more aged will be chiefly busied in mental occupa- 
tions. At the outset of our career, there will be some force in 
the marriage objection, but this is not the fault of my system. 
With every entry which a person makes in his business, he 
registers a portion of his pedigree, and if we had lived scien- 
tifically and kept a register of our pedigrees for the past two 
or three hundred thousand years, we could now calculate with 
unfailing accuracy what we would develop into mentally after 
we attained maturity. When the sciences of phrenology and 
human mechanics are fully developed, a person's chronopic 
value, aided by genealogy, can be summed up without physical 
or mental examinations, such as we have now to pass through ; 
but it is now impossible to predict whether phrenology or 
genealogy will be the more potent factor in determining our 
future achievements after we attain maturity. The perfec- 
tion of mankind implies the abandonment of the function-test, 
the structure being an unfailing measure thereof. Besides, it 
should not be forgotten that a person can generate his quota 
of family even after the age of forty ; or, taking man's natural 
average age to be at least a hundred years, the same object 
could be accomplished after the age of sixty years. 

I have now completed my outline of the State under the 
new civilisation, leaving the details to be filled in by the 
reader. We have yet, however, to discuss how the Church is 
related to the State ; and lest it should be considered that my 
system is too objective, all that is required to correct this 
erroneous impression is to glance at the heading of the fol- 
lowing chapter. 



BEFORE discussing the question of religion, it is necessary 
that no misconception can arise with reference to the classi- 
fication of our functions. It has been my misfortune to have 
a vocabulary restricted to our abstract conceptions of things, 
so that our language has no words to express the actualities 
in the conditions which I have been investigating; but by 
strict adherence to the context and by drawing a sharp line 
between the abstract and scientific categories, no confusion, 
I hope, will arise. It will have been observed that I have 
used the word ethics, as expressed in the phrase "physio- 
ethic ratio," to embrace all the functions of nerve-tissue 
morality, virtue, and religion. Morality is mental objec- 
tivity ; religion is virtuel subjectivity. But it is necessary 
here to understand how these qualities differ from those of 
the brute. The virtue of the latter is limited to the impulse 
which enables it to generate and preserve its offspring and to 
protect its species. These instincts are the subjective charac- 
teristics of its nature, and form the basis of its objective activi- 
ties. In this sense, hunger, for example, may also be classed 
as a subjective instinct ; but this quality is strictly limited to 
the individual, and the Humanitist can take no cognisance 
of mere egoistic impulses as playing a part in the ethics of 
humanity. The objective activities to which hunger leads 
only preserve the individual, and of itself would not lead to 
the generation or preservation of the species. The question 
now arises, What virtue does man possess which is not found 
in the lower animals 1 Man does not perpetuate his species 
by virtue of any impulse differing from that of the brute. 

In fact, he is a mere brute in this respect, and even less, for 



the latter does not abuse the instinct which leads it to beget 
and preserve its young. Man's virtue is therefore below that 
of the brute, although there are individual exceptions to this 
rule both in man and the lower animals : some men's virtue 
equals that of the brute, and the virtue of some brutes is as 
low and degrading as that of some men. Man compels some 
males amongst our domesticated animals to degrade their 
virtue. If the preservation of our species depended upon 
man's intelligence alone, there would be no struggling for 
existence, and our race would become extinct. So long as 
our virtue remains below, or only equals, that of the brute, 
we must struggle for existence in the same way. Here now 
comes the point which distinguishes the Humanitist from all 
other schools of sociology. He holds that man, unlike the 
brute, is capable of finding his way beyond the existing gene- 
ration and of scrutinising the future. This sympathetic in- 
stinct is religion. If the brute is virtuous, man is therefore 
super-virtuous. But we cannot be super-virtuous without 
also being super-moral. The morality of the brute is limited 
to such activities as are necessary for the obtaining of the 
means of subsistence. If it be a carnivorous animal, it can- 
not, on the average, run much faster than the animal upon 
which it preys. Thus we see that sudden changes in the 
environments may tend to the extinction of the species. 
Man, on the other hand, can although he does not so 
adjust his activities that he is largely independent of future 
contingencies, and in this sense he is super-moral. To carry 
out the illustration, he can exercise his structures and their 
functions to such an extent that he can run twice as fast as 
the animal upon which he preys. In short, if his sympathies 
are with humanity, his objective enterprises may be of such 
a nature that they tend to the preservation of our race. 
Man, before his fall, developed the germ of religion ; and this 
is the foundation of the edifice of Humanitism. The exist- 
ence of family and of patriarchal instincts has been a neces- 
sary condition in the chain of universal evolution. With 
respect to the moral, we have fallen below the lower animals; 
but, having the super-virtuous, the next step is the develop- 
ment of the super-moral. These qualities, however, are in- 


separably connected, and all our activities must have their 
ground in the subjective elements of our nature. We thus 
also see the importance of faith and hope as a basis of our 
actions. Faith must precede our works. 

We are now in a position to comprehend the violent nature 
of the dualism which has been playing havoc in the Christian 
Church. Christians worship the past, and repose their faith 
and hope in the future. They expect future rewards for the 
virtue of giving to the past. They fail to see that they rob 
the future of those very rewards, material and spiritual, 
which they give to the past, and also expect for themselves. 
They give away the cake and keep it, and then eat it and 
hand it down to their " heirs and assigns for ever." Like 
all other schools of abstraction, Christians have the right 
ideas in the wrong category. In order to bring the spiritual 
and material into harmony, I am bound by the logic of my 
inquiry to generalise the ideas of the future, instead of 
those of the past. The generalised ideas of the past are 
called God, more specifically known to Christians under the 
name of Jehovah, or Christ. In order to avoid confusion, I 
am obliged to coin a word which expresses the generalised 
ideas of posterity, and which corresponds to Jehovah in the 
abstract category. I select the word Mellos. 1 It is a gross 
fallacy to suppose that we cannot know the will of Mellos, 
who presides over the laws of nature, and I have already 
shown his influence in the production of economic wealth. 
Mellos is not the Unknown God whom we ignorantly wor- 
ship, but the God whom we intelligently plunder. It should 
be borne in mind that we have made all the Gods in our own 
image ; but he who stops short at this point is not a logical 
reasoner. It is just as true to say that the Gods made us 
in their image. When we make a God, he influences our 
actions, and we are made by our actions. If we are inspired 
to exercise a certain faculty, that faculty grows is created 
and developed. It is important to retain the word creation, 
to signify landmarks or revolutions in the great epoch of 
universal evolution. Creation is a potent throb in the life of 
evolution. If now we are inspired by the spirit of Mellos, 
1 Greek, Mellos, the future (One). 


we are created by him, and he controls the direction of our line 
of evolution. Mellos is not an arbitrary being created by man, 
but a logical necessity of our spiritual and material existence. 
Before further developing this subject, it is necessary to 
point out the dualism of science and religion, and show its 
relation to Humanitism. On this point, I must confine my 
remarks to the relation between science and Theism (philo- 
sophy) j for no scientist can accept such a ridiculous farce as 
the Plan of Salvation, or any other plan which has its source 
in priestcraft. The scientist confines his inquiry to the laws 
of nature, observing that the same antecedents always produce 
the same consequents under the same conditions, and he then 
arranges and classifies these laws. The Theist affirms that 
a law implies a lawgiver. The scientist answers, How do 
you know 1 This is the whole question in a nutshell. The 
Agnostic grants the existence of a First Cause, but asserts 
that he can know nothing about it, which puts an end to all 
further inquiry. The Theist strives to learn all he can about 
his lawgiver, and invokes science and philosophy to his aid. 
The orderly succession of phenomena is granted on all sides, 
but the scientist wants to know if this condition is the result 
of a preconceived plan if it presents evidence of design. To 
the orthodox theologian, a law seems to necessitate a lawgiver, 
but to the Theist, this merely appears to be the more rational 
explanation of phenomena, and is therefore related to his 
belief. To the scientist, the existence of a lawgiver is not 
a logical necessity : the existence of laws implies the exist- 
ence of harmony in their arrangement and succession. The 
Humanitist demands an answer to the following questions : 
Is the lawgiver merely the First Cause of the phenomena 
which we behold, or of all the phenomena of the Universe 1 
Should we strive to learn the First Cause of the limited or 
the unlimited phenomena 1 Which of the Causes should we 
worship ? Who caused the existence of the lawgiver ? Which 
is the greater power, the lawgiver or the laws? Which is 
the more rational belief, that the lawgiver or the law is 
self-existent? Should we obey the lawgiver or the laws? 
Which is the more credible (i) that the lawgiver produced 
the law, or (2) that the law produced the lawgiver? 


The position of the Humanitist is different from that of 
both the scientist and the Theist. It may here be said that 
the Humanitist is a scientist. Very true ; but there are three 
classes of scientists : (i) the man who acts for the purpose of 
making money, (2) the man who acts for the purpose of 
appearing wise, and (3) the man who acts for the purpose of 
improving his conduct who acts for the purpose of improving 
his virtue and morality, not for the mere purpose of knowing 
what these qualities are, although this knowledge is a neces- 
sary outcome of his inquiry. This tripartism may be resolved 
into a dualism, namely, objective and subjective science. The 
Humanitist is the subjective scientist; the other classes are 
the objectivists. The former acts from the conscience ; the 
latter from the intellect. The subjectivist evolves intelligence 
from his virtue (religion) ; the objectivist attempts to evolve 
virtue from his intelligence. With this explanation, no con- 
fusion, I think, can arise. The position of the Humanitist is 
this : he obeys the law, and in doing so he reasons that 
he cannot offend the lawgiver. He does not start with the 
theory that there is a " preconceived plan," but inquires 
whether nature has any plans, studies the process of evolu- 
tion in the historic pages written by human hands and on the 
rocks, and then drives the knowledge thus acquired to its 
logical conclusions, both with reference to the past and to the 
future the beginning and the end of natural phenomena. 
The more he learns about the laws of development, the more 
he can comprehend about First Causes and Last Effects. To 
him the latter are the basis, for it is more important to know 
the effect of an action than the cause. He worships the Last 
Effect instead of the First Cause, and in this way he gets a 
step ahead of the abstractionist, for the First Cause is pro- 
duced by the Last Effect. Hence we again see the necessity of 
worshipping our posterity, instead of our ancestry, if the word 
worship is to be retained. Pertaining to himself personally, 
the Humanitist is an out-and-out Agnostic, but he soliloquises 
thus : " If I obey the laws I shall bring children into the 
world who will be stronger, healthier, and wiser than myself, 
and through generations of faith in this process the time will 
come when my posterity will know something about First 


Causes and Last Effects ; but if I disobey the laws, no faith 
or hope in the attainment of this end can be entertained." 
The present conclusions which science must lead to are that 
the laws of nature are immutable, and that if other planets 
are older and more highly developed than ours, they may 
contain more highly organised beings Gods but it is our 
duty to obey the laws of our development, not those of theirs. 
When we enter the kingdom of Heaven and become Gods, 
then we must obey the divine laws. If we attempt to obey 
the divine laws now, neglecting those by which we are con- 
trolled, we can never enter the New Jerusalem. If the Gods 
are mightier than we, they have attained their sovereignty 
through strict obedience to the laws of their being and de- 
velopment ; and the higher the Deity in the scale of existence, 
the greater is his control over these laws. When we learn to 
see that the divinities are produced by the laws which they 
obey that the law creates the lawgiver then we make a 
leap from the abstract into the scientific category. 

It is now obvious that the Humanitist takes his starting- 
point from the future, not from the past, and that the Melloic 
religion cannot yet have inception, except as an undeveloped 
instinct. Those who have studiously followed my arguments 
will have observed that I have given vast opportunities for 
measuring the progress of humanity, mentally, virtuelly, and 
physically. But we have as yet no basis for measuring such 
progress. There are many things, however, which we do 
know for instance, Mellos does not want an ever-increasing 
class of paupers, criminals, and lunatics and it makes no 
difference in this particular whether we generalise the ideas 
of the twentieth century or the hundred and twentieth. By 
constantly measuring the progress of humanity in the various 
ways I have pointed out, it is obvious that every generation 
can see farther into the future than its predecessor, and thus 
Mellos becomes an ever-increasing entity, and not an abstract 
theory. In short, he may be reduced to mathematical rules, 
so that when we ultimately obtain control over our own 
destinies we become Gods. By constantly fixing our minds 
upon the will of Mellos, who inspires us to activity, he 
becomes our creator ; and if we now personify the ideas of 



any living generation, or those individuals in it who are 
inspired to great deeds, under the name of the son of Mellos, 
it is remarkable how close is the analogy between the Melloic 
and the Christian religion. In both instances there are three 
persons, in the Godhead, and all the believers or saints have 
become the sons of Mellos (John i. 12, and Rom. viiL 14, 
24-26). Sin is disobedience of the law ; and the resurrection 
will be when the graves are opened to pour out their spoils to 
be evolved into other forms of organic life. The power of 
Mellos is absolute ; the will of our race is measured by the 
dust of fallen empires, although, as we shall presently see, 
Paul uttered a grand truth when he commanded us to work 
out our own salvation. He can be justified for accentuating 
the absolutism of the higher powers. Interpreted in the light 
of Humanitism, I have no hesitation in accepting the Scriptures 
as the grandest and loftiest conceptions that have ever been 
penned. I make these reservations, however, that I judge 
them by their general tone, and that their superiority is 
evidence of human degeneracy during the past twenty cen- 
turies. They originated in the true subjective spirit of the 
religion of humanity ; but the Christianity of to-day is essen- 
tially the child of priestcraft, which Christ so vigorously 
denounced. Never has there been an age in which the con- 
ditions were more favourable for the creation of the loftiest 
ethical sentiments. The extremes of objectivity, the result of 
false philosophies, had been reached, the times were ripe for 
subjective reaction, and the facilities for spreading knowledge 
greatly increased in subsequent centuries. The experience of 
ages was concentrated in Alexandria, thus facilitating the 
compilation of the noblest sentiments of all previous ages. 
It was quite natural that the writers of the New Testament 
should give undue prominence to the function in preaching 
the preciousness and immortality of the soul, for this was 
quite in harmony with the abstract methods of that day, the 
philosophers having been champions of the Idea, and the body 
was therefore looked upon as a degrading lump of earthly clay. 
For those who understand the human nature of priestcraft, the 
errors, contradictions, and immoralities of the Scriptures can 
be easily traced. Many of the contradictory passages can be 


explained by ingenious devices, and the interpolations of the 
priests are quite in sympathy with this policy ; for it was to 
their interests that the common people should be obliged to 
come to them to have the intricate way to salvation pointed 
out for a consideration. Before the days of printing, it was 
quite easy for the scribes to twist the Scriptures into confor- 
mity with their ideas ; and as for miracles, they come as a 
matter of course when everybody believes in them, and when 
there are no Huxleys or Tyndalls to inquire into the validity 
of the miraculous. Christ wrote nothing, and the words at- 
tributed to Him must be received with the greatest caution. 
In this inquiry we are only concerned in what has been 
written, the authenticity of the writings being a matter of 
little or no consequence. What I want to show is, that the 
writers display, by their tone, the spirit of humanity an 
earnestness for the welfare of our race. The widening of the 
narrow range of Patriarchism, the extension of salvation to 
the Gentile, is intensely humanitistic. The Jews (subjec- 
tivists), who dwelt in the spirit, and the Gentiles (objec- 
tivists), who dwelt in the flesh, were all to become partakers 
of the new salvation. In the ethics of Humanitism there is 
nothing more touching than the words of Jesus (Matt, xviii. 
i6), when He placed a little child in the midst of His dis- 
ciples, and the reward offered for merely giving a cup of cold 
water to "one of these little ones" (Matt. x. 42), clearly in- 
dicating the humanitistic tendency'to forget the things behind 
and reach forward to the things before. Our children may 
be nearer and dearer to us, but our children's children are 
nearer and dearer to Mellos, and the claims of God should 
prevail. The child cannot cultivate a regard for humanity 
unless it learns to reverence and obey its parents. This duty 
is the first practical lesson in religion, and it is the duty 
of the parents to teach their children the truth by way of 
parable to feed them with milk until they are able to assimi- 
late solid food. The Epistles of Paul are a most passionate 
appeal on behalf of humanity, and nothing explains the truths 
of Humanitism more clearly than the parables of our Lord. 
Even the Lord's Prayer applies as forcibly to Mellos as to 
Jehovah. The doctrine of Hades is also prefigured, for those 


who do not enter the kingdom of the Melloic heaven must 
suffer eternal death. I will here quote a few passages which 
are in perfect sympathy with humanitistic ethics : 

"Come unto Me, 1 all ye that labour and are heavy laden, 
and I will give you rest. . . . My yoke is easy, and My burden 
is light (Matt. xi. 28, 29). Every kingdom divided against 
itself is brought to desolation ; and every city or house divided 
against itself shall not stand (xii. 25, 26). Every idle word 
that men shall speak, they shall give an account thereof in the 
day of judgment (xii. 36). Now the axe is laid unto the root 
of the tree : every tree therefore that bringeth not forth good 
fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire (iii. 10). I indeed 
baptize you with water. . . . He shall baptize you with the 
Holy Ghost and with fire (iii. n). He cast out spirits with 
a word, and healed all that were sick (viii. 17). Neither do 
men put new wine into old bottles (ix 17). What man is 
there of you, who, if his son shall ask him for a loaf, will give 
him a stone ; or if he shall ask for a fish, will give him a ser- 
pent? (vii. 9). Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out 
of thine own eye ; and then thou shalt see clearly to cast the 
mote out of thy brother's eye (viii. 5). Do men gather grapes 
of thorns, or figs of thistles? (16). The harvest is truly plen- 
teous, but the labourers are few (ix. 37). There is nothing 
covered that shall not be revealed (x. 26). Whosoever shall 
do the will of My Father which is in heaven, he is My brother, 
and sister, and mother (xii. 50). It is hard for a rich man to 
enter into the kingdom of heaven : ... it is easier for a camel 
to go through a needle's eye (xix. 23). If thou wouldst enter 
into life, keep the commandments (xix. 17). And Jesus . . . 
cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and 
overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and the seats of 
them that sold doves (xxi. 12). The stone which the builders 
rejected, the same was made the head of the corner (xxi. 42). 
Take, eat, this is My body ; drink ye all of it, for this is My 
blood (xxvi. 26, 27). Except a man be born anew, he cannot 

1 In comparing the Scriptural with the humanitistic allegories, the first 
person, or person speaking, in the latter case may typify Christ, Paul, or 
any of the disciples, for (like the children of Helios), all are animated by 
a unity of spirit. 


see the kingdom of God (John iii. 3). Every one that drinketh 
of this water shall thirst again (iv. 13). He that reapeth 
receiveth wages, and gathereth fruit into life eternal ; that he 
that soweth and he that reapeth may rejoice together (iv. 36). 
Search the Scriptures (v. 39). Work not for the meat which 
perisheth, but for the meat which abideth unto eternal life 
(vi. 27). I am the bread of life (vi. 35). My teaching is not 
Mine, but His that sent Me (vii. 16). The devil . . . was a 
murderer from the beginning, and stood not in the truth, 
because there is no truth in him (viii. 44). Ye are gods 1 
(x. 34). I am the resurrection and the life (xi. 25). Except 
a grain of wheat fall into the earth and die, it abideth by 
itself alone; but if it die, it beareth much fruit (xii. 24). 2 If 
I ... have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one 
another's feet (xiii. 14). I am in the Father, and the Father 
in Me (xiv. n). No longer do I call you servants (xv. 15). 
Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, 
and to have salutations in the market places, and chief seats 
in the synagogues, and the chief places at feasts : they which 
devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers 
(Mark xii. 38-40). I am not ashamed of the gospel. The 
righteous shall live by faith (Rom. i. 16, 17). Gentiles 
which have no law do by nature the things of the law (ii. 14). 
There is none righteous, no, not one ; there is none that 
understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God . . . 
(x. 10-18). Do we then make the law of none effect through 
faith? God forbid: nay, we establish the law (iii. 31). 
Where there is no law, neither can there be transgression 
(iv. 15). Being therefore justified by faith, let us have peace 
with God; ... let us rejoice in the hope of the glory of God 
(v. 1-3). Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound ? 
God forbid (vi. i). The wages of sin is death (23). The law 
of the Spirit of life in Jesus Christ made me free from the law 
of sin and of death (viii. i). 3 If we live after the flesh we 

1 A poor compliment to the gods of those days ; but the meaning is : 
Ye are the germs of gods. 

- This passage, although not scientifically expressed, is the key to the 
liumanitistic religion, and expresses the law of perpetuity. 

3 Those who obey the laws of nature do not feel that obedience is any 
burden, but rather u pleasure. 


must die ; but if by the Spirit ye mortify the deeds of the 
body, ye shall live (viii. 13). Behold then the goodness and 
severity of God (xi. 22). 1 So we, who are many, are one 
body in Christ (xii. 5). Let us prophesy according to the 
proportion of our faith (6). 2 Let every soul be in subjection 
to the higher powers : for there is no power but of God ; 
and the powers that be are ordained of God (xiii. i). Be 
diligent, not slothful (xii. 10, n). We that are strong ought 
to bear the infirmities of the weak (xv. i). They that are 
such serve not our Lord Christ, but their own belly, and by 
their smooth and fair speech they beguile the hearts of the 
innocent (xvi. 18). Render to all their dues (xiii. 7). God 
. . . shall bruise Satan under your feet (xvi. 8). God chose 
the weak things of the world, . . . and the base things, . . . 
and the things that are despised (Cor. i. 27, 28). The Spirit 
searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God (ii. 10). 
Each shall receive his own reward according to his labour 
(iii. 8). If any man buildeth on the foundation of gold, silver, 
costly stones, wood, hay, stubble, each man's work shall be 
made manifest, . . . and the fire itself shall prove each man's 
work . . . (12, 13). All things are yours (22). Purge 
out the old leaven . . . (v. 7). He that ploweth ought to 
plow in hope, and he that thresheth, to thresh in hope of 
partaking (ix. 10). Knowledge puffeth up, but love edifieth 
(viii. i). 3 If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, 
but have not love, I am become a sounding brass, or a clang- 
ing cymbal; . . . love vaunteth not itself, and is not puffed 
up ... (xiii. 1-4). Where the Spirit ... is, there is liberty 
(2 Cor. iii. 19). For we know that if the earthly house of 
our tabernacle be dissolved, we have a building from God, a 
house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens (v. i). 
He that soweth sparingly shall also reap sparingly ; and he 
that soweth bountifully shall also reap also bountifully (ix. 6). 

1 Those who habitually obey the laws do not feel their severity. 

2 Faith strengthens our intellectual faculties, and the more intelligent 
we grow, the further can we penetrate the future, under the dispensation 
of Humanitism. 

3 That is, knowledge which has no subjective basis. The character of 
the objectivists is summed up in chap. iv. 19-21, and that of the sub- 
jectivists follows. 


Though we walk in the flesh, we do not war, according to the 
flesh (x. 3). Before faith came we were . . . under the law shut 
up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed (Gal. iii. 
23). The law hath been our tutor to bring us unto Christ, that 
we might be justified by faith ; but now that faith is come, we 
are no longer under a tutor (24, 25). One thing I do, for- 
getting the things which are behind, and stretching forward 
to the things which are before, I press on towards the goal 
. . . (Phil. iii. 13, 14). Servants, be obedient unto them 
that according to the flesh are your masters . . . (Eph. vi. 
5). 1 The labourer is worthy of his hire (i Tim. v. 18). The 
love of money is the root of all evil (vi. 10). To the pure all 
things are pure : but to them that are defiled and unbelieving 
nothing is pure (Titus i. 15). Be ye doers of the word, and 
not hearers only (James i. 22). Whosoever shall keep the 
whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is become guilty 
of all (ii. 10). 2 As the body apart from the spirit is dead, 
even so faith apart from works is dead (26). Whence come 
wars and whence come fightings among you ? Come they not 
hence, even of your pleasures that war in your members ? Ye 
lust, and have not : ye kill and covet, and cannot obtain ; ye 
fight and war; ye have not, because 1 ye ask not. Ye ask, 
and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may spend it 
in your pleasures " (iv. 1-4). 

A deeper inquiry into the ethics of religions and philoso- 
phies would, I think, prove that the human mind cannot 
transcend the limits of experience ; and this question is easily 
solved when we transfer our thoughts from the abstract to 
the concrete category. At any rate, I have quoted passages 
enough to show that our conscience belongs to Mellos, not 
to Jahveh or Jove, and that the Humanitist is not come to 
destroy, but to fulfil. In a previous chapter, however, I 
stated that the Scriptures were very elastic, being susceptible 
of a great variety of interpretation. The orthodox theologian 

1 Under Humanitism there will be no distinction between master and 
servant, but so long as we are in the flesh obedience is necessary : the 
remedy is to get out of the flesh as quickly as possible. 

2 This passage is aptly illustrated by my remarks on vitality, namely, 
if natural laws are obeyed in every particular, except the use of our jaws, 
we shall perish just as surely as if we had disobeyed all the Iaw9. 


has now two doors for escape, i. He may maintain that the 
Scriptures may be allegorically interpreted in such a manner 
that they harmonise with Humanitism ; in which case, how- 
ever, they cannot be a divine revelation to man, for a writing 
which can be so interpreted as to defend both the thesis and 
the antithesis can neither be a revelation nor an inspiration. 
Nothing can be both true and false at the same time : man 
cannot come both from above and from below. 2. He may 
defend the negative side of the question, maintaining that 
such an interpretation is impossible, erroneous, illogical. In 
this case, he is obliged to disprove the truths of science, and 
show that Jahveh is engaged in solving the social problem, 
if there is such a thing to be solved. 

Those of us who have had our eyes constantly fixed upon 
the past, and can only see the future as a hazy and formless 
void, must gradually remove the scales from our eyes by 
looking upon ourselves as the future from the standpoint of 
the past. Had William the Conqueror been a worshipper of 
Mellos, and had he been sufficiently sharp-sighted, compas- 
sionate, and powerful to witness and defend his subjects of 
the nineteenth century, would we now have weeping mothers 
and pitiful children imploring us for crumbs of bread ? His 
being deaf to the voice of Mellos, and callous to the teachings 
of his gospel of peace and good- will, and of "liberty, equality, 
and fraternity," is no absolution for our atrocious crimes. On 
the contrary, though we may pardon his ignorance, the prac- 
tical lessons of the past eight centuries make our guilt all 
the more unpardonable our sins and crimes all the more 
flagitious if we attempt to further develop and perpetuate 
his nefarious deeds. Could the souls of our ancestors rest 
peacefully in heaven if they were conscious of the wailings 
of their children here below curses provoked by ancestral 
vices and transgressions 1 

We are now in a position to comprehend Humanitism 
in its three aspects past, present, and future. In the 
abstract conception the starting-point is in the past, and the 
motion towards the present. A narrow idea prevails that 
humanity embraces merely the living in any given genera- 
tion, the past and the future being matters of little or no 


human concern ; that when we reverence and worship our 
ancestors we do our duty to the past, and when we merely 
provide for our own children, we do our duty to the future. 
The Humanitist takes his starting-point from the future, and 
gleans from the present and past all that is great and good 
and grand which will be pleasing in the sigh t of Mellos. All our 
thoughts and feelings are therefore Mello-ethic ; all our doings 
Mello-physic. This is the only method through which unity, 
order, and harmony can be attained an acknowledgment of 
the sovereignty of Mellos and the only method through 
which we can fulfil our destiny ; not as a matter of choice, 
but of necessity. We must learn to reverence an object not 
owing to its great antiquity, but on account of what it will 
become in the future, and the farther we can see into the 
future the more intense grows our veneration. But we can- 
not attain this end so long as we remain in a state of de- 
generacy. We may be pardoned for worshipping our great 
ancestors so long as they remain greater than we ; but when 
we begin to draw our inspiration from the future, that 
moment we become free men, and our march towards salva- 
tion is secure. Let us worship the Last Effect which creates 
the First Cause, and the most bigoted Christian or the most 
ardent Theist cannot refrain from applauding our conduct. 
Mellos will inspire us with the noblest and most heroic of all 
subjective impulses. 

Orthodox Christianity having had its day, and as it must 
fall with economicism, let us now drive some of the leading 
new religions to their logical conclusions, and compare the 
results with the legitimate conclusions of Melloism. At the 
outset it should be borne in mind that Melloism and humani- 
tistic industrialism must go hand in hand the one would be 
an impossibility without the other while economicism must 
go hand in hand with Theism, Comteanity, Christianity, or 
some other new religion in the abstract category. What I 
mean by Christianity, however, is some development, or re- 
trogression, of the existing forms. It can only continue to 
exist by relapsing into Romanism and terrorism ; an enforced 
restoration of unity and harmony in religious thought priest- 
craft, authority. This can be of no ultimate avail, because it 


would lead to the reassertion of religious individualism, and 
then we would be in the same position as we are now. Rational- 
ism, Secularism, and Agnosticism are to be applauded for their 
services in attempting to thwart this disaster. A vigorous 
wave of Socialism would also be instrumental in preventing 
Sacerdotalism from raising its impious head. Strong as my 
sympathies are with the Irish people, yet, unless the Irish 
difficulty leads to the subjugation of Sacerdotalism, these 
magnanimous people will lay the foundation of their own . 
ruin. Priestcraft is the same all-devouring monster in all 
countries and in all ages. If people will not think with their 
brain, they must be compelled to think with their belly. 
These are all destructive forces ; and before I pass on to 
discuss those forces which are both destructive and construc- 
tive, i.e. Theism and Comteanity, I may be permitted to 
define what I mean by Sacerdotalism. The word embraces a 
principle which is not limited to ecclesiastical matters ; there 
is a "soporific principle" in the Church, as well as in the 
State, quite apart from the divine nature of its origin. In 
the ultimate analysis, the question resolves itself into this : 
Are we to pass through a stage of metaphysical ecclesias- 
ticism a condition in which the volition resides in the 
object, not emanating from an external source 1 We have 
ceased to believe in the divine origin of the State, and yet its 
"soporific principle" still appears to us to be superhuman. 
Are we to entertain the same belief with respect to the Church ? 
An answer to this question will be a solution of the whole 
problem. If the Church ceases to be divine, and yet contains 
n superhuman power inherent in its stole or its pulpit, the 
metaphysical page of Church history will be a mere transcript 
of the divine page. The Church and State stand or fall to- 
gether on this ground. If we are to have a religious war, 
it is quite possible that the metaphysical idea will lead us to 
excesses just as appalling and bloodthirsty as the religious 
idea has ever done. This leads to an inquiry as to the cause 
of such a disaster. I draw no distinction between the 
priestcraft of conformist and nonconformist bodies : the prin- 
ciple remains the same, although there may be variations in 
the degree. Authority under the rule of Sacerdotalism is 


identified with individualism amongst all religious bodies who 
engage priests to do their thinking in the region of speculative 
ideas. If there is more terrorism in the sacerdotalist, it is 
because he has more to defend : he must defend his property 
and his profession, while the nonconformist may only have 
his profession to defend. Under all circumstances, the priest 
will defend those rights and privileges through which he 
obtains a respectable livelihood, and possibly also lays some- 
thing by for his "heirs and assigns forever," in order that 
they may keep up that degree of respectability which is due 
to the family and the ancestry. In short, the priest must 
defend his monopoly. If we now connect this idea with the 
manner in which other monopolists act^when their "rights" 
are in danger, we may safely predict the turn of events. 
The principle of Sacerdotalism is therefore not confined to 
the Church. The priests are selling more indulgences to-day 
than at any previous period in history. Our Parliaments are 
workshops for the manufacture and sale of indulgences, 
and every doctor, lawyer, and apothecary is engaged in the 
same business. Our Royal Commissions are nothing but 
grinders of indulgences. The principle underlying the whole 
affair is this : there is an ever-increasing army who are 
pushing their way into respectable employments, which con- 
sist in the manufacture and sale of abstract speculations 
indulgences and which force us out of touch with nature and 
the laws of our being and development. We live in a fictitious 
region, and rebel when we are invited to draw upon the soil 
thereof for the gratification of our physical wants. What 
now do the constructive theologies offer us? The Theist 
thinks it rational to believe that a law implies a lawgiver, 
and accordingly he worships the lawgiver and disobeys the 
law. To him the law is an earthly affair ; and he wants to live 
a spiritual life. Naturally enough, this is an easy belief for 
him, because, his flock moving with him, he neither loses his 
employment nor his respectability. He condemns Sacerdo- 
talism by urging his people to think for themselves in religious 
matters, and yet he retains the very system which coerces all 
religions and philosophies into suicide. He removes himself 
and his adherents from junction with the means of subsistence j 


and as he invokes science to aid him in abstract speculations, 
Theism becomes the most suicidal of all forms of Sacerdotalism. 
The Theistic laymen are called upon to think for themselves, 
and also to pay for getting their thinking done for them. 
The Theistic Church can only lead to the more rigorous type 
of Sacerdotalism, if it acquires sufficient wealth and strength. 
Comteanity is as yet free from the error of organised priest- 
hood. The adherents of this religion, as worshippers of 
humanity, are quite consistent in their Socialistic proclivities ; 
but they are still operating in the abstract category, and draw 
even more inspiration from the past than do all other religious 
denominations put together. Their leaders are the greatest 
educators of the people in all the leading branches of learn- 
ing, which tends to draw men of ability and of keenness for 
inquiry. The weakness of the " Keligion of Humanity " is 
the number of dualisms with which it is beset. In the first 
place, it is not the logical outcome of the positive philosophy 
of its founder. It aims to democracise wealth and aristo- 
cracise political power, which is a gross inconsistency. It 
acknowledges feeling to be the basis of thought and action, 
and yet subjugates the subjective element women. The out- 
ward respect which it claims for women is not consistent with 
her political subordination. If women are unsuited for the per- 
formance of public duties, so much the worse for politics, and the 
only rational method of solving the dualism would be to reform 
the public duties. A profession which is not fit for a woman 
should be a disgrace to all honourable men. Women being 
the subjective element of mankind, it would be more logical 
to assert that they alone should enjoy the franchise ; and if 
feeling is the mainspring of action, it must logically follow 
that women, under the same conditions and opportunities, 
are intellectually greater than men. Why do the Comtists, 
therefore, not strive to make the conditions and opportunities 
identical ? In criticising the " Keligion of Humanity," Pro- 
fessor Huxley says he "would just as soon bow down and 
worship the generalised conception of a wilderness of apes." 
For my own part, I would ten thousand times rather bow my 
knee to a wilderness of apes than to a city of Ripper Jacks. 
Man can never truly worship degenerating humanity he has 


been attempting to do so for thousands of years but be may 
worship the " generalised conception " of what he may become 
under orderly and progressive conditions. The object of our 
worship must be greater and purer than ourselves. Of all 
the new religions, the " Religion of Humanity " is the least 
dangerous, and if its adherents could devise some method of 
bettering our material conditions, they might justly indulge 
in the prospects of success. They have the right starting- 
point in ethics ; let them now seize the same advantage in 
economics and agriculture. If Comte had removed his " sopo- 
rific principle " from the State as effectually as he removed it 
from other objects, he would probably have been the father of 

Let us now examine the logical conclusions of Melloism. 
Every clear reasoner will see that it evades all the errors and 
injurious tendencies of other religions. Above all, it is sure 
death to priestcraft. The lawgiver is now subject to the law. 
This is no abstract theory, but is the logical necessity of the 
law of evolution, which must be universally recognised by 
every unbiassed observer, as well as by every earnest in- 
quirer. The law is the eternal principle, and the efficient 
cause of all phenomena : the lawgiver is the subordinate cause 
of subsequent phenomena. The plain inference is, that it is 
our supreme duty to obey the law, not to inquire into the 
will of the lawgiver. Granted that the phenomena of our 
world is the direct effect of a lawgiver, it would be a contra- 
diction to say that we can obey the law and disobey the law- 
giver. Obedience thus becomes our supreme duty, and sub- 
jectivity the basis of all our actions. Conscience, i.e., virtue 
and religion, is evolved from ourselves, and does not emanate 
from an external source ; it is the source of our morality. 
The Humanitist cannot separate religion proper from those 
other sources of emotion which inspire him to fulfil his destiny 
such as the family, music, art, poetry, allegory, &c., all of 
which must also have a scientific basis. We are labouring 
under the delusion that civilisation is developing musicians. 
We must have a soul for melody before we can develop an 
ear for music. When we hear man out of tune with himself 
and with the rest of the world, when the pitiful strains of 


social discord cease to rasp our souls, we surely cannot so far 
forget ourselves as to say that we have musical ears. Let us 
first have social symphony, and then tune our sacred lyre. 
The most melodious strains are those which most inspire us 
to do our duty. The mere imitative art of the present day 
is without aim, and thus loses all genuine charms. Every 
masterpiece of art should in some way represent the artist's 
conception of our destiny, or some situation which inspires us 
to fulfil it. The plastic art of the present day is either an 
economic idea or a representation of paganism ; it is capable 
of enormous development in the scientific category. When a 
great individual arises amongst us, Mellos demands the exact 
configuration, not the head merely, but the whole body, 
divested of such inutility as fashionable apparel : this is of 
material importance in measuring the progress of humanity. 
An ideal statue representing the human form should com- 
prise all the knowledge which the generation possesses in 
mechanics, anatomy, physiology, phrenologj'-, and physiog- 
nomy not a human being of the living generation, but one 
whom, by prophetic inspiration and by our knowledge of 
human progress, we can idealise in some generation of the 
future. This will be another method of measuring human 
progress, and such statues will be objects to be studied, nob 
merely to be gazed at and admired. These are statues of 
Mellos, and should clearly indicate the generation to which 
they are dedicated. Posterity will thus be able to detect our 
errors, and evade them in their own representations of ideal 
art. These statues are not ideal in the abstract sense of the 
word, for when man begins to control the laws of his develop- 
ment, thus being able to calculate which of his structures will 
tend to become extinct and which of them will tend to de- 
velop, prophecy then becomes reduced to mathematical rules, 
and we become persons in the Godhead. Science has already 
pointed out some of our structures which are tending to be- 
come extinct, but so long as society remains in a state of 
anarchy, no accurate calculations can be made with respect to 
our future except that civilisation will be extinguished unless 
we leap out of the abstract category. These statues will show 
to future generations the degree of accuracy with which we 


have interpreted the will of Mellos. The Goddesses will be 
an important and special department of this branch of art. 
Contrasted with this method of progress, I cannot forbear 
mentioning the decline in our statuary art as indicated by the 
statue of Achilles erected in Hyde Park, inscribed to the 
Duke of Wellington and his "brave companions in arms," 
which is the greatest satire oil our religion as well as our art. 
We worship Jehovah, and depend upon the Greek Gods and 
Goddesses for our religion. To the scientific art critic, this 
statue, inscribed by our " countrywomen," indicates the true 
source and bent of our religion. The failure of Zeus and the 
subordinate Greek divinities consisted in their having human 
structures which were supposed to perform superhuman func- 
tions. The merit in the statue of Mellos consists in the 
structures being a correct indication of the functions; for 
he can have no functions which do not emanate from and 
are consistent with his structures. Jahveh is less scientific than 
Zeus, for he possesses supernatural functions without struc- 
tures. Mellos, like Jahveh, quickens our subjectivity; but, 
unlike him, demands objective activity from his worshippers. 
The objectivity demanded by Zeus was through outward com- 
pulsion rather than through inward inspiration or necessity. 
Jahveh exclaims : Obey ! The order of Zeus is : Command ! 
The motto of Mellos is : Obey that you may be able to command. 
The religion of Humanitism, in its widest sense, embraces all 
sources of subjectivity. Poetry and allegory call them fable, 
fiction, or parable, if you will will all have a scientific and 
subjective basis. In aim they will not differ from painting 
and sculpture, and will bear some relation to our destiny, like 
all other objective activities. They draw out the beauty, 
strength, and harmony of our language, and are designed to 
inspire us to noble and virtuous deeds. We certainly cannot 
withhold our reverence from the noble heroes and heroines 
of the past, and as they have been animated by the spirit 
of Mellos, we must honour and respect their memories 
on account of their divine kinship. It may be urged that 
Humanitism is a system of downright cruelty concerning 
the bodies of our departed friends, and especially those who 
are near and dear to us by the ties of blood. The fear of 


death is the legitimate parent of this fallacy. The model 
Humanitist, conscious of having fulfilled his duties, does not 
fear death ; and, dying, contemplates the sublime thought of 
resurrection into the new life. The true man does not really 
die ; he merely, by virtue of his old age, falls peacefully and 
quietly into his last sleep, without a sigh or a pang. The 
graveyard is the result of the fear that the deceased may 
have entertained doubts as to his being in perfect unison with 
the shades of his ancestors. Take away the fear of death, 
and we destroy all sacredness in our ashes : only our spirits 
merit our veneration, and they live twice in our works and 
in posterity. We should desire to live that we may do more 
good. The desecrators of Mellos cannot live in their works 
for lack of faith to perform, and they go down to Hades 
instead of entering the kingdom of Heaven. Their name is 
oblivion. Humanitism is a constant transition from the 
unknown to the known. 

It will have been observed that in Humanitism there is 
a close and inseparable relation between Church and State. 
The king rules by divine right, and all the officers of State 
and Church derive their appointments and authority from 
the same source. Mellos is lord paramount, enjoying the 
monopoly of all the land and all the products, includ- 
ing man and his conscience, and his vicegerents and other 
subjects on earth are merely tenants for life. It is the 
duty of the tenant, at the expiration of his lease, to hand 
over the land to his landlord without damage or waste, and 
return interest on the capital invested instead of hiding his 
lord's money. 

I have now, I hope, shown clearly, though briefly, that 
there is naturally implanted in the human breast sufficient 
incentive to move us to generous and strenuous activity. 
Despite the ruinous character of our political and educa- 
tional institutions, let us cling to the faith which is insepar- 
able from our being, and it will inspire us to fight the good 
fight in the coming struggle for that form of "liberty, 
equality, and fraternity" which will endure to the end of 
time. Let us not deceive ourselves in the belief that mere 
preaching can empower us to cope with the economic forces 


which are organised and arrayed against us. We must work 
diligently and patiently, and fight courageously, not in the 
spirit of inhumanity or revenge, but in the spirit of love and 
piety and truth yes, Truth, that awful tyrant to the dis- 
obedient and the factious, but that kind and submissive 
master to his obedient and faithful worshippers. 



IN previous chapters I assumed the existence of matter and 
force, which may be regarded as unwarrantable. The solu- 
tion of this dualism is not essential to the constructive phase 
of our inquiry, but may aid in destroying a number of the 
abstract theories with which we have been cursed. Our 
duties and responsibilities are now plain, and it makes no 
difference whether the ultimate phenomenon is matter or 
force, or any combination of these agencies. My claim is 
that I have solved all dualisms which have been regarded 
as such ; but if I have discovered fresh ones, this is another 
question. A sharp line must be drawn between dualisms 
which produce harmony such as centripetal and centrifugal 
force, pleasure and pain, &c. and which are not problems for 
solution, and those which produce discord, which I have been 
engaged in solving. I have spoken of law, an eternal entity 
which we are called on to obey, and the question may be 
asked whether this phenomenon is some external volition, 
or some property inherent in matter, and yet possessing dis- 
tinct and unchangeable characteristics peculiar to itself. 

The word dualism I have used in more than one sense. 
In its widest signification, it means any twofold division, in- 
cluding an argument resolved into two sides : when it is a 
three-sided issue, I have called it a tripartism. In a more 
limited sense, we have the philosophic, the metaphysical, 
and the theological dualism. In philosophy, it is opposed to 
monism (materialism), mind being admitted to be distinct 
from matter, and a spiritual opposes a mechanical force. In 
reality this is a tripartism. In metaphysics and theology, 

the dualism is brought out more purely and distinctly : in the 



former, the human soul is arrayed against lower animal life ; 
and in the latter, his Satanic Majesty is marshalled against 
the Christian Deity, which, however, in modern Christianity, 
is a very mild form of dualism. In another sense, all dualisms 
may be said to disappear when man is conceived as having no 
existence either before his inception or after his extinction. 
The scientist has only to do with actualities as he finds them, 
not with abstract conceptions, but so long as he maintains 
that the mind cannot transcend the limits of experience, he 
cannot disregard the conclusions of abstract theorists. A 
sharp distinction should be drawn between an abstract and 
a scientific theory. The latter is quite legitimate, for it is 
the logical conclusion of a truth, or truths, already investi- 
gated, and should a dualism arise, the question leads to 
further investigation. When the result of an experiment 
leads to two theories, one of which is capable of experi- 
mental inquiry and the other not, the failure of the tested 
theory is strong presumptive evidence of the truth of the 
other. The value of Humanitism does not depend so much 
upon the truths already investigated, but especially upon its 
ability to categorise theories in such a manner that they are 
capable of investigation, and that, when investigated, they 
bear a fixed relation to our physio-ethic ratios. It makes no 
provision for investigation merely to satisfy our curiosity, but 
awakens our curiosity to acquire knowledge which has an 
established relation to our destiny. The dualism of matter 
and force loses its supreme significance for the reason that no 
scientist has yet proposed to burn a professional brother on 
the stake for refusal to accept the sovereignty of matter, or 
force, as the case may be. On the other hand, it has philo- 
sophic importance from the standpoint of the tendency of the 
human mind to struggle after unity, order, and harmony. 
In one sense, the word philosophy is used to express the 
theorisings based upon the results of scientific investigations 
i.e., philosophy begins where science ends. We have thus 
three distinct meanings attached to philosophy; but in the 
above-mentioned sense confusion may be evaded by substi- 
tution of the phrase "scientific theory." It would be as 
futile for the scientist to attempt to get along without a 


theory as it would be for him to attempt to get along without 
a Deity who presides over human destiny. 

Before discussing the question of matter and force, it is 
necessary to understand the relation between organic and 
inorganic matter, and mechanical and vital forces. A sharp 
line must be drawn between organised and unorganised matter. 
We have (i) minerals (salts) which are inorganic, and (2) those 
which have become a part of plant-tissue organised minerals 
or salts which are indispensable to plant and animal life, and 
may therefore also be called vitalised minerals. Again, we 
have such manifestations as sound, heat, light, electricity, all 
of which are reducible to one phenomenon. Reducing these 
to mechanical force, electricity, we have a corresponding vital 
force misnamed " animal magnetism." It should be called 
organic or vital electricity, it being also found in plants, and 
thus distinguished from inorganic electricity, or the electricity 
of inorganic nature mechanical force. Electricity should be 
studied from three standpoints : (i) that of the inorganic 
world, (2) that of vital tissue, and (3) that of dead organic 
matter post-organic electricity. We know nothing about 
vitalised minerals, for we must reduce living tissue to ashes 
before we can analyse them, thus restoring them to the 
mineral kingdom ; but we can ascertain many properties of 
organic matter as a whole, embracing both the organic and 
the vitalised inorganic substances. We have now a basis for 
experimentation which enables us to add fresh testimony to 
some of the problems discussed in previous chapters, and 
which will, at the same time, give rise to new theories with 
reference to matter and force. 

Let me here recur to my previous remarks with reference 
to the "vital electricity" in raw foods, which has been ex- 
perienced by those scientific vegetarians who have closely 
observed the effects during the transition from cooked to 
raw rations. Not only do they experience an increased vital 
force, but also a pleasant coolness accompanied by an itching 
inclination to cast off the clothing and engage in vigorous 
exercise, sun, air, and rain-baths being specially pleasant and 
invigorating. It is known that plants have a rudimentary 
nervous system, and exhibit many characteristics common to 


animals, notably breathing, circulation, sleeping, and various 
complex movements ; and it may be fairly assumed that the 
heat in cooking has, to some extent at least, the effect of 
dissipating the fluid which causes the vito-electric current in 
the nerve-tissue of the plant. 

It pains me exceedingly to be under the necessity of citing 
some experiments conducted by myself. I might have given 
numerous experiments of my own in previous chapters for the 
purpose of substantiating the truths of other statements, but 
I purposely refrained, partly for the reason that I preferred 
quoting more widely recognised authorities, and partly because 
I desired to show that Humanitism is not a one-man institu- 
tion, but rather a synthesis of the leading truths in all depart- 
ments of science. My apology in citing my own experiments 
here is that, so far as I am aware, no similar ones have been 
conducted ; but I do not ask anybody to accept my conclu- 
sions or my theories until they are also substantiated by men 
who enjoy greater public confidence than myself. In taking 
by the hands persons of highly developed nervous tempera- 
ments, I have succeeded in exhausting my nervous energy, by 
an effusion of the vito-electric current into the nerves of my 
subjects, to such an extent that my nervous prostration lasted 
two or three days.- In restoring myself to my natural condi- 
tion, I found that fresh raw fruits were the best agency, that 
raw meal proved more effectual than bread, that animal foods, 
even milk, operated still more slowly, and that hot cooked 
vegetables were probably the most ineffectual of all the rations 
which I tested. Electricity from the battery and alcoholic 
stimulants appeared to have no other effect than to deaden or 
distribute the dull sensation caused by the nervous exhaus- 

If this question were more thoroughly investigated, I am 
convinced that further proof would be added to the scien- 
tific theory, that ordinary electricity produces results akin to 
those produced by inorganic drugs, the effects therefore being 
merely distributive and disturbative, and not curative, while 
vital electricity produces nutritive and curative effects. One 
of my subjects used to return to me to have a " sick headache" 
cured. I make these observations to show the importance of 


vital electricity in the discussion of many problems pertaining 
to this inquiry. I shall not here drive my theories to their 
logical conclusions ; otherwise I might be accused of creating 
worse superstitions than I have extinguished in the previous 
pages. Give me an instrument for measuring the vito-electric 
current, and I will reduce our thoughts and passions to alge- 
braic formulae. Vital electricity is also related experimentally 
to our habits of wearing clothes. Clothing can never be sub- 
stituted for the natural hair with which our bodies were for- 
merly covered. Hair is a regulator of temperature, moisture, 
and vital electricity, although it is not absolutely essential 
to our existence. It is unquestionable that clothing, dead 
organic matter, is poisonous to the system. No forms of artifi- 
cial bathing can be substituted for the natural sun, air, and 
rain-baths. In our natural condition, we would run out to 
enjoy the genial showers, instead of protecting ourselves from 
them; and so far as shame is concerned, our natural instincts 
would teach us that we ought to be ashamed to attempt to 
escape such a wholesome enjoyment. Naturally enough, a 
shower of rain is injurious when we are wrapped up in clothing; 
and as for cold, the very thought of which makes us shiver, 
there is nothing more conducive to health and strength, and 
yet we must fight to get rid of it, just as we do with all other 
good things. Any person who has not experienced the invi- 
gorating effects of a cold atmosphere, in taking exercise un- 
covered after a cold bath, has not begun to enjoy life. In 
principle, wearing clothes is like eating cooked foods : in the 
latter case we deprive our vital organs of their natural exer- 
cise and stimulus, while in the former, the same remarks 
apply to our skin. Cleanliness, however desirable, is no sub- 
stitute for this violation of natural law. What is probably 
still more injurious, clothing breaks the natural electric con- 
tinuity between our bodies and the external world. So long 
as we continue our meat-eating habits, it is folly to expect 
genuine reforms in this direction. Perfection in health con- 
sists in not being able to have a conception of the tempera- 
ture of the atmosphere or other medium which surrounds 
our bodies without the aid of a thermometer. This truth 
may be illustrated by the fact that if we depended entirely 


upon our face to measure the temperature of the surrounding 
atmosphere, we would be far from the mark in our calcula- 
tions. Two or three hours' daily exercise in the open air, 
bodies uncovered, would cure more diseases, other sanitary 
measures also being duly attended to, than all the doctors in 
Christendom. The air and rain contain vito-electric forces 
which cannot be found in the bath-tub. An important dis- 
tinction exists between organised and mineralised waters. 
The greatest nonsense that has ever been uttered is the theory 
that we can, through milling and cooking, deprive our foods 
of their natural salts, making up the deficiency by drinking 
mineral waters or swallowing mineral drugs. 

The theory that matter cannot be changed into force, or 
force into matter, must be broken down. The collision of two 
equi-sized planets would generate sufficient heat to dissipate 
them into their original mist. But we need not depend upon 
such far-fetched illustrations. When we see ice converted 
into steam and steam into ice, we say that matter is con- 
verted into force and force into matter. Ice is potential 
force, steam potential matter, and water potential force and 
matter. This, like electricity, is mechanical force ; but what 
is spirit ? Let us hear what Bible commentators have to say 
about the following passage, namely : " The Spirit of God 
moved upon the face of the waters " (Gen. i. 2). The fol- 
lowing theories have been advanced : l i. A violent wind. 
2. Elementary fire. 3. Rays of the sun. 4. The angels. 5. 
A certain occult principle, the soul of the world. 6. Mag- 
netic attraction. 7. The Holy Spirit of God under the 
notion of a wind. The leading thought in these ideas is 
matter in motion, No. 6 being a submission to scientific ideas. 
Was this Spirit of God something that moved or nothing that 
moved 1 An attempt has been made to solve this dualism by 
the theory that intelligence is not a function of matter, but 
a certain somethingness or nothingness which moves, or is 
unmoved and unmovable, outside of matter. If such a thing 
exists, and if it can be moved by our importunities, all scien- 
tific inquiry must cease ; for when the scientist importunes 
it to extinguish abstract theories, and the abstractionist im- 
1 Clarke's Commentaries. 


portunes it to extinguish science, a confusion would occur 
which must derange the natural order of phenomena. My 
position is to show that all actions which emanate from the 
abstract category have proved a failure in the attainment of 
certain ends, and that the only recourse is to try the scientific 
category as an experiment. 

When we once see that all matter is potential force, and all 
force potential matter, the foundation of a monistic phenome- 
non is laid. This phenomenon in its passive, negative con- 
dition manifests itself to us as matter, and in its active, 
positive condition manifests itself as force. It is all things 
actually or potentially. It will not do to say that heat 
expands matter and converts it into force, for expansion, or 
the removal of pressure, may have been the original source of 
heat or the reverse the original source of cold. The life- 
history of inorganic matter is that it evolves into the organic, 
then reverts into the inorganic state, and so on ad infinitum. 
This law is not altered by saying that certain forms of 
inorganic matter e.g., clay, gold, silver never become 
organised, or that certain organic elements e.g., nitrogen 
do not revert, for we have no reason to believe that they 
have never reverted, and never will revert, or that traces of 
them may not be found in all objects, although we may not 
be able to discover them by chemical analysis. Indeed, the 
tendency of law seems to be towards the organisation of 
all the mineral kingdom. The conclusion is, that the vito- 
electric current is a subtle fluid and we even literally feel it 
stream out of our bodies which is capable of extraordinary 
attenuation and voluminousness. It is amorphous and proto- 
plastic, contains all the elements of vital tissue, is more viscid 
at low, and more volatile at high, temperatures, is transparent 
and colourless, and permeates all atmospheric space. Varying 
with the temperature, it becomes more or less rapidly renewed, 
the dead residue falling to the ground to be reorganised or to 
revert to rock, and go through another life's cycle. In this 
manner, the same elements which compose the vito-electric 
current in one cycle may become rock, inorgano-electricity, 
or vital tissue in the next cycle, and thus matter is being 
constantly changed into force, and force into matter. This 


theory explains many obscure problems in science, and is not 
impracticable as a basis for investigation. It explains that 
all spiritual and intellectual phenomena are due to the vito- 
electric current. It cannot therefore be said that law is force 
or matter, but a transition a process of evolution. 



IN every system of ethics and industrialism the following 
relations are of specific importance : i. Free-will and neces- 
sity. 2. Egoism and altruism. 1 3. Man and woman. 4. 
Master and servant. 5. Education and instinct. 6. Na- 
tionalism and internationalism. Each of these questions 
should be the subject of a special chapter; but (i) owing 
to the restricted scope of this work, and (2) owing to the 
close and logical relation which they all bear to the prin- 
ciples already laid down, they may here be briefly dis- 
posed of. 

i. Free-will and Necessity. Of all philosophical problems, 
this one is least understood, and the theories advanced in all 
ages have been sources of great discord and confusion. If we 
could measure universal law, and also that portion thereof 
which belongs to our race, man's will could be reduced to a 
mathematical ratio. If it be our will to do those things which 
law coerces us to do, then the dualism of free-will and neces- 
sity becomes a nonentity a fiction. It cannot be said that 
we exercise our will when we do what we are obliged to do ; 
and yet when it is our will and good pleasure thus to act, it 
may be said that we possess unlimited free-will. The measure 
of our will resides in our power to disobey the law. The con- 
fusion of our abstract speculators is caused by their extreme 
individuality. They will tell us, for example, that they are 
perfectly free to eat cooked food or wear clothing ; but from 
the humauitistic standpoint this so-called freedom is pure 

1 Altruism, originally from the Latin, has been borrowed by Herbert 
Spencer from Comte, and means the antithesis of egoism. Egoism is 
downright selfishness ; altruism, a tender regard for the welfare and hap- 
piness of others. 



fiction an absolute nonentity for a repetition of such con- 
duct, extending through many ages, would end in the extinc- 
tion of our race. The freedom of the will is closely allied 
with the law of evolution. This principle may be illustrated 
by the reasons why man has failed to become a carnivorous 
animal, despite the attempts of so many centuries. If he 
had, during the past two or three hundred thousand years, so 
exercised his structures by running that he became enabled to 
capture his prey, and then tear it with his jaws, as do the 
carnivorous animals, he would now probably be a carnivore, 
providing those human beings who were not able to obtain 
their livelihood in this manner were systematically weeded 
out. The hunter, the butcher, and the cook have, however, 
thwarted our will in the process of evolution towards carni- 
vorism. As a basis for evolution, we must have the subjec- 
tive desire accompanied by corresponding objective activities, 
and our structures with their functions must gradually become 
accommodated to the change of environments. Free-will can 
only be attributed to the lower animals in as far as they will 
to do that which they are compelled to do by virtue of the 
law of their being and development, and here no dualism can 
be engendered. If they will to disobey this law, they become 
extinct ; and there is nothing in man which, in this respect, 
differentiates him from the so-called brutes. Man, however, as 
a super-moral and a super-virtuous animal, can exercise greater 
freedom of will than the " dumb brutes," because he can bring 
the law of evolution under greater control. Strictly speaking, 
there is no such $ dualism as free-will and necessity ; but by 
making our pleasure and happiness consist in obedience to the 
law, we may learn to act as if we enjoyed absolute freedom of 
the will. This dualism, like that of Individualism and Social- 
ism, must be categorised as a nonentity. 

2. Egoism and Altruism. If this can be construed into a 
dualism, my whole plan of salvation must be pronounced a 
failure. " Live for others " is a motto of the Positivists ; 
and the motto "Each for all, and all for each" is rapidly 
gaining ground in the Socialistic world. Such phrases are 
very popular, and they sound very charitable and merciful. 
They appear to be very altruistic, but they will not stand 


scientific analysis. Charity is universally regarded as a virtue ; 
and, as we saw in a previous chapter, some people must suffer 
injustice in order that charity may abound amongst others. 
How can Ave "live for others" when, under economic rule, 
we cannot live for ourselves ? The whole gospel of economic 
altruism may be summed up thus : " What is your will that 
men should do unto you 1 " " Why, give me money, of course." 
" Well, go therefore also and likewise do even so unto them." 
This is the result of economic forces, and then we must hire 
preachers to advise us to "live for others." Here is where 
the dualism comes in, which will solve itself despite the efforts 
of all preachers and other abstract theorists. The funda- 
mental error in economic altruism is, that we are obliged to 
rob posterity in order to give to the living and the dead. Js 
that altruism 1 An ethical rule should have universal appli- 
cation. In order to show the failure of economic altruism in 
this respect, let us take an illustration. Of three persons, A 
is rich, B is in moderate circumstances, and C is poor. Now, 
if A lives for B, and B for C, whom must C live for ] Seeing 
that C cannot live for. himself, he certainly cannot live for 
others. If A, B, and C are all moderately well-off, each 
thus being able to live for himself, there can be no altruism : 
therefore the poor must exist in order that the rich may exer- 
cise the virtues of altruism, which is downright egoism. It 
will not do to say that nobody can live for himself, that every- 
body is dependent upon others for a living. The standpoint 
is that everybody is equally able, or has equal opportunities, 
to live for himself, and any exchange of services cannot there- 
fore be regarded as egoistic or altruistic. Let us now take an 
illustration from the spiritual world. The mother loves and 
nurtures her son, and we will therefore suppose her to be in- 
spired with the true altruistic principle. But the son must 
also be inspired with the same spirit, and must therefore rever- 
ence and obey his mother. The mother derives self-gratifi- 
cation in loving her son, and if she also expects the reward of 
reverence and obedience, she cannot be altruistic, for altruism 
must be performed without expectation of reward. Therefore 
the son must practise egoism in order that the mother may 
indulge in the pleasures of altruism, which is altruism. Thus 


we see that all attempts to construct a dualism must end in 
failure. Let us now apply a little humanitistic logic to this 
question. In the first place, everybody who comes into the 
Avorld does so by the consent of society and of humanity, and 
it therefore makes no difference what accidents befall him, 
whether injuries be self-inflicted or otherwise, he does not 
depend upon charity, and can receive nothing but justice. 
In the abstract category, it may be said that there is scope 
for altruism in cases of accidents ; but the same rule implies 
egoism on the part of the misfortunate. If it is altruism to 
give, it must be egoism to receive. The Humanitist accepts, 
as the basis of his actions, the fundamental principle that the 
desire of Mellos is that the most moral men should enter the 
kingdom of Heaven ; and when his individuality is thus 
lost in the will of Mellos, he may be provisionally regarded 
as being intensely altruistic; but one-half of the story yet 
remains untold. At the same time, he must receive from 
Mellos all that is required to enable him to execute the divine 
will in the most efficient manner, which is, provisionally, an 
egoistic impulse. He knows that it is only through obedience 
to the law that he can bequeath to his children those virtues 
which fit them for divine inheritance. The process is there- 
fore a constant giving and receiving an eternal efflux and 
influx and the ego-altruistic dualism thus becomes a pure 
figment. The governing of ourselves from the standpoint of 
the past has driven us into the dark abyss of egoism ; the 
governing of ourselves from the standpoint of the present 
would sink us into the lowest egoistic depths, which can 
only be evaded by government through representatives of the 
future. To the Humanitist, the word justice comprehends 
all that the abstractionist can embrace in the words egoism, 
altruism, charity, and mercy. An altruist cannot exist with- 
out an egoist. 

3. Man and Woman. The relation between the sexes, 
especially between man and wife, must ever hold an impor- 
tant place in all ethical and industrial systems. It is stated 
in a previous chapter that there is no essential difference 
between the employments of men and women. While it is 
true that the law of development in both sexes is identical, 


yet the same end can be attained by different means. The 
nature of the differences in the occupations of men and women 
can only be intelligently understood by a consideration of the 
ethical distinctions of the sexes. Having seen that woman is 
the subjective element of our race, it naturally follows that 
she should not engage in such daringly objective enterprises 
as those pursued by our sex. Under Humanitism, all the 
professions and other intellectual pursuits will be admirably 
suited for all womanly instincts, and the physical occupations, 
in proportion to the decay of menial employments, will be 
gradually opened up. That the women of the present day 
cannot understand politics and economics is the highest com- 
pliment which can be paid to them, and they are entitled to the 
same compliment with respect to the professions. Put these 
occupations on a common-sense footing, and they will be admir- 
ably suited for women ; and our sex will have fearful competi- 
tors. By virtue of our moral courage, our objective activities, 
our sex should be able to win the love and esteem of pure- 
hearted and noble-minded women. But whence are we to 
draw our deepest inspiration our most subjective incentives ] 
From the fair sex, of course. Upon this question there is also 
too much individuality in the minds of our speculative thinkers ; 
they are in the habit of regarding the individual to be the 
atom of a link separated from the endless chain of humanity. 
Man and woman, notably husband and wife, are intrinsically 
one person, the latter being the subjective and the former 
the objective element of one nature, and as subjectivity forms 
the basis of life and action, the part which woman plays may 
be readily conceived. There is another reason why men 
should regard women as the basis of their thoughts and 
actions. In matters pertaining to women's virtue, it is well 
known how prone men are to act as the aggressor, and so 
long as our sex assumes an air of superiority, they can act 
aggressively without shame or remorse ; whereas, by culti- 
vating a feeling of reverence and obedience, we are checked 
in our wicked career. The great man always worships the 
subjective. He who casts a supercilious glance at a woman 
is bereft of all virtue, all modesty, all shame. Woman is 
the long-sought philosopher's stone the Jevonian instrument, 


sought by the Utilitarians, which measures the vibrations of 
our pleasures and pains. In the dim vista of the future, 
I already see the statue of Queen Mellos gazing meekly upon 
her king as he stoops to kiss her faithful hand ; and my only 
bequest is that my dust beget the flowers that wreathe her 
sacred brow. Man and wife do not stand to each other in 
relation of inferiority and superiority ; for objective activities 
should be an inspiration to greater subjectivity, just as much 
so as the reverse of this order. "Where mutual relations exist, 
there can be no dualisms. I have no sympathy with those 
who counsel the subordination of women those who keep 
the bird shut up in a cage and then blame the delicate little 
creature for not being able to fly. Under economic rule, 
I would moietise the " vote and influence" ticket solicited by 
our politicians, giving the votes to the men and all the in- 
fluence to the women; and if men dared to exercise any 
influence, I would deprive them of their votes and enfranchise 
the women. If our politicians were men, no woman would 
ever dream of soliciting the franchise. 

4. Master and Servant. Those who have concluded that 
Humanitism makes provision for a dualism in reference to 
this question have not reasoned logically. When we once 
know what scientific wealth is, no fallacies can arise. The 
final increment of wealth is an increase in our physical 
development and our ethic attributes. All wealth com- 
modities must tend to this end. From this standpoint every 
individual is his own capital, invested in his own business, 
and he keeps accounts with himself. His account-books 
therefore show the progress which he is making in his busi- 
ness. Every man must therefore be his own master, and if 
he can exchange services with his neighbour, no relation of 
master and servant can arise, neither can the actions or 
transactions be regarded as egoistic or altruistic. When 
an action is just, all the other qualities and attributes, 
if it can have any, must follow as a logical necessity. 
Master and servant is suggestive of a criminal relationship. 
The standpoint of development is that each individual 
should perform such actions, thus developing such functions, 
as are necessary for procuring the means of subsistence. 


This basis should never be discarded, and it pertains to the 
Avhole animal kingdom ; but by no means can the inference 
be drawn that this sphere of activity should not be enlarged. 
Indeed, this enlargement should be the line of demarcation 
between man and the lower animals. In this manner, ex- 
changes of services and transactions may be made, which can 
never lead to the relationship of master and servant. When 
an individual coerces a weaker brother to perform actions 
which he should perform himself, the inevitable condition is 
that the strong man grows weak and the weak man strong, 
the servant thus becoming master, and the repetition of this 
incident is the summary of all human history. Mankind 
conceived in the relationship of master and servant is the 
fabrication of a diseased braiu, a pure nonentity, and can 
never have a concrete existence. If these words are to be 
retained in our language, we may all regard ourselves as 
masters and also as servants. If it be said that there are 
great men whom we must acknowledge as masters, then we 
strike another abstraction, for the inference must be drawn 
-that weak individuals can be permanently perpetuated. If 
'we acknowledge masters in one sphere of activity, we must 
be acknowledged as masters in another sphere. On what 
principle can we otherwise exist? If our race is to be per- 
petuated, we must gravitate towards equality, and when 
everybody is great, nobody is great. From the humanitistic 
standpoint, the number of great men are miserably few. 
Upon what principle can a man be called great who delights 
in war in the shedding of human blood 1 ? How can a great 
man spend precious time in developing abstract speculations 
and building castles in the air? Can a great man delight in 
plundering his fellow-men, and in transmitting the spoils to 
his " heirs and assigns for ever " 1 Is he great who coerces his 
weaker brother to become his slave ? The truly great man 
desires that every individual should have equal opportunities 
for becoming great and good, and bestirs himself to attain 
the object of his desire. He who employs a servant, as he 
would a brute, to administer to his abstract desires must 
abandon all hope of future rewards. As before remarked, 
however, such conditions must be fulfilled in the onward 


march of universal evolution ; and from this standpoint the 
master, as a martyr in the cause of mankind, deserves our 
deepest sympathy. On the same principle, the priests in 
all ages should be deified for their martyrdom in the cause 
of humanity, for they have amply proved the fallacy of the 
theologic idea. 

5. Education and Instinct. It is admitted on all hands that 
we are artificial beings. If this assertion has any meaning, 
it must signify that we have sacrificed our instincts on the 
altar of education. This question may be discussed from two 
standpoints : (i) the material, and (2) the spiritual. All the 
lower animals are instinctively drawn into relation with the 
source of subsistence ; but with man this is not a respectable 
employment. Being an educated animal, he attempts to live 
on luxuries and on the theories of abstract ideas, which tend 
to extinguish his instincts, and consequently also his very 
existence. In the spiritual world, it is quite respectable 
to theorise abstractly about the nature and attributes of 
virtue and abstract religion, but to speak about their true 
origin is a criminal offence. If we wish to reverence pos- 
terity, we must elevate and purify its source. Nothing should 
be purer than the source of subsistence and the receptacles of 
posterity. Education can only have one definition, namely, 
the misuse and abuse of our instincts, so that by confining 
our efforts to the cultivation of our instincts, the dualism is 
solved, and this is the only method of solution. That man 
can evolve into an educated animal is just as great a fallacy 
as the theory of his evolution into a theist or an orthodox 
theologian. We can only evolve by cultivating or educating 
our instincts ; we certainly cannot do so through actions 
which tend to destroy them. The generalised ideas of the 
past are an objective deity the product of our intellect ; the 
generalised conceptions of the future are a subjective deity 
who presides over humanity, and is the product of our virtue, 
not of our intelligence the product of instinct, not of educa- 
cation. The salvation of our race through education has 
proved a disastrous failure ; the only recourse is to try the 
effects of our instincts. By this shift of basis we do not 
debase our intellect, but rather strengthen and purify it, for 



we then acquire the natural incentive to exercise our intel- 
lectual faculties, which, in their turn, strengthen and ennoble 
our virtue. In like manner, the shifting of the material 
basis from the commercial to the agricultural will increase 
and purify our manufacturing and commercial industries, for 
a hundred millions of people will have more wants, although 
no abstract desires, than a third of this number, and the 
immense importations and exportations of human beings in 
pursuit of physical and intellectual training will be much 
more respectable and profitable than an increased trade in 
swine and sausage. But this gigantic manufacturing enter- 
prise in humanitistic industrialism should not be driven to 
its objective extremes. By all means, let us have Professor 
Huxley's " wilderness of apes," and a suitable number of all 
other kinds of animals. We have already learned more from 
the ape than from all our educational institutions combined. 
Professor Ape teaches us no abstract theories. Judging from 
the cruelties which economic men inflict upon, the lower 
animals, there will not even be an ape to whom they can 
hand over their manufacture and trade when man perishes 
from the face of the earth, which must be his destiny under 
economic rule. Humanitism, by its very nature, inspires 
reverence for the " dumb brutes," and no humanitist can 
tolerate the merciless cruelties of the slaughter-house. The 
theory that God created the lower animals for man's use and 
pleasure, which has led to the cruelties of the chase and the 
slaughter-house, has no place in humanitistic ethics. Any 
change of categories in the ethical must lead to a correspond- 
ing shift of basis in the material world. The forest is man's 
home ; the city is his exile. Trees are a condition of his 
existence, and he can never evolve into a city animal. Our 
education drives us into the city ; our instinct drives us into 
the forest. The city does not bring human beings closer 
together; on the contrary, it severs them farther asunder. 
Material proximity is spiritual diffusion. The humanitist brings 
physical, intellectual, and spiritual education into unity and 
harmony, thus combining science and art, and dispenses 
with practice. Art signifies the carrying out of scientific 
principles, so that practice can only signify the repetition of 


acts which have no scientific basis. The word practice is, 
however, useful to express operations conducted in experi- 
ments. He does not ignore the past, as the heroes of the 
French Revolution have done, but rather stimulates historical 
inquiry, gathering from the pages of our ancestors and of 
nature all that will conduce to the fulfilment of our destiny. 
Man has no rights beyond those derived from the immutable 
and inexorable law ; but he has a sovereign duty to perform, 
and that duty is to be obedient and just. 

6. Nationalism and Internationalism. Patriotism* should be 
sharply defined in every system of ethics. Granted that it is 
the duty of every loyal citizen to shoulder arms in defence of 
his country, yet the question still arises as to the nature of 
his patriotic duties where there is no monopoly, no over- 
population, and consequently no national or international 
wars. Under economic rule, it is the duty of the State to 
defend monopoly, and the more successfully it performs its 
duty, the greater, one would think, should be the patriotism 
of the subjects. But the duty of all civilised States is 
identical, although there may be variations in the perform- 
ance, and it is therefore difficult to understand how a subject 
can be more loyal to the land of his nativity or adoption 
when the rulers perform their duty less efficiently than those 
of other States. Humanitism, in its name and essence, is 
inconsistent with nationalism ; and an international boundary- 
line is a pure abstraction. And yet, despite this fact, it is 
the only ism which is workable in any given State without re- 
gard to the isms adopted in the adjacent or surrounding States, 
or even in distantly located States. For example, what could 
any foreign State do against the United Kingdom with a 
population of a hundred million of peaceful souls, all being 
supported from our own soil, every man, woman, and child 
being virtually a trained soldier, and there being no cities, 
towns, or villages to be attacked? The flimsiest conception 
of an invasion is sufficient to prove its absurdity ; and if other 
States adopted our weapons of defence, there would be no 
aggressor, and consequently all warfare must come to a pause. 
Those of us who imagine that, under economic rule, war will 
be abandoned for the reason that nobody desires to see such 


a disaster, or on account of the "spread of Christianity," 
are, to express it mildly, very illogical reasoners. If all the 
nations of the world entered into a holy alliance for the 
prevention of war and for the cessation of arms, the docu- 
ment would only be a signal of still greater disaster. War 
waged for the promotion of peace is not less disastrous 
than that waged to satiate the ambition of the greatest 
despot who ever usurped or encumbered a throne. The 
reason for this is, that economic forces are stronger and 
more damning than the voices of the preachers of right- 
eousness and peace. The proposal to change individual 
into State monopoly still leaves these forces in the same 
category. France by her Revolution tried this change, 
and after a century's experience it has proved itself to be a 
woeful failure. Monopoly is the parent of all disaster, and it 
makes no difference if the monopoly is wrung from humanity 
by the State or by the individual. When we learn how to 
produce wealth without making it scarce, and when we see 
that heaven, with its deity, is in the future and not in the 
past, we inaugurate a period of universal and everlasting 
peace. When we speak of coming wars as being engines of 
disaster amongst nations, we display our ignorance : they are 
wars between theism and metaphysics struggles between 
supposed supernatural powers external to an object and those 
inherent in it. It makes no difference whether this super- 
natural agency comes down to us from the shades of our 
ancestors, or whether it is inherent in gold or in the crown. 
None of these agencies can save us or point us out the way to 
salvation. The spread .of theism would drive us back to the 
Oriental Theocracies of three thousand years ago ; an orthodox 
priestcraft combination would restore us to the Middle Ages ; 
and the metaphysical idea would plunge us into the year 1789, 
thus inaugurating a universal era of French fratricidal Frater- 
nity. There are two conflicting views entertained with refer- 
ence to the French Revolution : (i) that it has been a grand 
success, and (2) that it has been a disastrous failure. Both of 
these views are right, and both are wrong. All depends upon 
the set of theories from which the facts have been derived. 
From the standpoint of universal evolution, the French Revolu- 


tion must be pronounced the most brilliant achievement in 
the history of mankind. It has proved that the metaphysical 
is just as chimerical as the theological idea. On the other 
hand, from the standpoint of its default in attaining the end 
at which it aimed, it must be pronounced a most disastrous 
failure. It aimed at the solution of the economic problem ; 
but instead of solving it, the horrors of economicism have 
been brought out in all their intensity. A vigorous era of 
Socialism would be death to theistic and theologic abstractions, 
and would add fresh evidence to the inefficiency of the meta- 
physical idea ; but the economic question is still as backward 
as it was a century ago. We in England are not far from the 
time when a Trafalgar Square mob can transmute us into a 
Republic ; and then, as in France, begins the era of dictators 
and despots. The civilised States of modern times do not 
depend upon foreign barbarians for their overthrow : modern 
barbarians are bred in streets and garrets, and Christian 
civilisation is their mother. Foreign barbarians are being 
brought under the yoke of civilisation by our Bible and our 
beer. What hope can there be for the future of our race 
so long as Oriental Shahs continue to come West to take 
models of our Western civilisations? Our greatest foe is 
indifference, and we may continue to boast of our flag and 
our commerce until we behold the naked fishermen swarm- 
ing to line our native shores. Those of our rulers who 
persuade themselves that the soldiery, so long as they are 
drawn from the masses, will much longer continue to obey 
the fiat of merciless despots must suffer the consequences 
of their miscalculation. Our critics flatter themselves that 
their task is done when they point out the errors and incon- 
sistencies of proposed changes, or prove them to be worse 
than our existing conditions. The real question is no longer 
confined to the impracticability of proposed institutions 
indeed, it is safe to infer that all changes in the abstract 
category will be for the worse but our present concern is 
how we are to conduct ourselves in the inevitable revolutions 
of the near future. So long as we can find an outlet for our 
poverty-stricken and rebellious masses we may avert the dis- 
aster, but our time should be employed more profitably and 


manfully. Warning cannot come too soon ; it may come too 
late. Peace is growing more terrible than war. To say that 
man is by nature a war animal is to enunciate a theory which 
has no foundation in fact, and the assertion is a very con- 
venient method of palliating our crimes. I would regard 
myself guilty of a great wrong if I made such an accusation 
even against carnivorous aninials. Man, like all other animals, 
has strong self-preservative propensities ; but to say that he 
enjoys the scent of human blood is a vilification of his in- 
stincts. As an educated animal, he may exult in the gore of 
his prey, as the carnivores do, but to rank his natural com- 
passions below those of other herbivorous animals is the inflic- 
tion of unscrupulous injustice. 

I have now offered a solution for six dualisms which have 
been the source of much discord in all ages. All abstract 
speculations have failed to approach unity and harmony in 
these questions ; indeed, the discordance is growing more and 
more strained. There are other questions which bear upon 
two or more of these dualisms, one of which I will now briefly 
notice, namely, language. 

Language is one of the best measures of man's progress or 
degeneracy. It is tacitly assumed by some that the nose is the 
organ of speech, by others the tongue, by others the mouth. 
If each structure is to exercise its natural function, this ques- 
tion must be solved. All these assumptions are false, and are 
incontestable proofs of our degeneracy. Just on the same 
principle which makes us too lazy to exercise our jaws to 
masticate our food, thus attempting to cast the burden OH 
organs which have not been constructed to bear them, we find 
a tendency to talk with organs which are not intended for 
speech. When we evoke sounds from the chest, we produce 
speech and melody; when we empty other organs, we talk 
and hum. The recital of one of Homer's choice hexa- 
meters is sufficient to exhaust our vocal resources. That 
the ancient Greeks possessed great physical strength is 
proved by their language, as well as by the statuary 
which has been exhumed from their ruins. They spoke 
their charming and powerful language ; they did not talk it, 
as we do ours. This is proved by the deep and full sounds of 


the vowels and diphthongs, and the absence of silent con- 
sonants. When all the letters in all the words of a lan- 
guage become silent, there is a sure mark of physical and 
moral degeneracy. The leading characteristics of a language 
may be divided into three: (i) deep, full vowel sounds, (2) 
inflections and terminations, and (3) the absence of silent 
letters. The beauty of English, therefore, is that it is not a 
language at all. Full-sounding vowels must be pronounced 
by the proper organ of speech ; inflections give variety of. 
construction, and when all the letters are pronounced, the 
language can be spelled. The only language of modern 
Europe is the German, and Germany is the only country 
which, other conditions being equal, can produce orators and 
musicians. We waste in the spelling-class the time which 
the German spends in becoming a soldier, and the physical 
strength thus acquired is conducive to the production of a 
powerful language. We have no chest, and can therefore 
have no language. We have abundance of fresh air which 
is capable of producing the most powerful and bewitching 
language that has ever issued from a throat ; but owing to 
the very abundance of our air, we merely breathe to live : 
when it becomes scarce, we will live to breathe, and then, 
unless we go to excess, our talk will develop into speech, and 
our buzz into music. The Latin language was less perfect 
than the Greek, but more perfect than ours is, or any of the 
Romance languages, so that the progress of degeneracy may 
be easily traced. These preliminary observations are neces- 
sary to the main issue. Our so-called language is largely com- 
posed of Greek and Latin roots ; otherwise expressed, we have 
been obliged to steal the words, and have denuded them of 
their power and charm. What greater proof of degeneracy 
can be desired ? But this is not yet half of the whole story. 
We have also been obliged to steal the institutions and laws 
which were originally expressed in these heathen languages ; 
then we boast that our institutions are divine, and call our- 
selves British patriots. Our crown virtually decked the head 
of Aristotle, and this is the main source of our loyalty and 
our patriotism. To be ignorant of these facts is called edu- 
cation classical education. But our story yet remains half 


untold. Our art is improved, and our virtue strengthened, 
by sketching the nude Gods and Goddesses of heathen. 
Greece, and it is only from this source that our ideals of per- 
fection in the forms of human beings can be obtained. One 
of the virtues which I claim for Humanitism is, that our 
harangue will develop into speech upon scientific principles, 
and not, as now, be left to the fortuitous concourse of cir- 
cumstances ; and the same remarks will apply to our pro- 
gress in literature, art, and politics. 

The necessity for a Deity may be questioned. It may be 
urged that humanitistic forces will drive people into morality, 
Deity or no Deity. This statement is quite true ; but it must 
not be forgotten that we cannot individualise the conceptions 
of posterity ; we must generalise them, and God is a symbol 
of unity, order, and harmony, leading to concentration of 
thought and feeling, so that we can most effectually fulfil our 
destiny. Mellos is a patron of art and strengthens our sub- 
jectivity. Besides, I am aware of no object in life except 
happiness and pleasure, and it seems to me that art, founded 
upon science, should be the orthodox method of attaining 
this end. The condition of our art is just as deplorable as 
that of economic and theologic orthodoxy, and of law and 
politics, the reason being that our artists have, during all 
these long ages, been working without a vanishing point. 
Mellos is the vanishing point of all our feelings, thoughts, 
and actions. If it be an essential characteristic that a Deity 
should be invisible, uncalculable, and unknowable, these quali- 
ties being necessarv for the inspiration of awe and dread in 
his worshippers, then I must confess that Mellos possesses 
a weak spot a vulnerable heel. He possesses this great 
advantage, however, that he is very deceptive ; for the per- 
fection of art consists in its deception. The artist, for 
example, who cannot depict a cluster of grapes so as to make 
our teeth water, or a sausage that excites our contempt and 
loathing, is a mere novice in his calling ; and the sculptor 
who cannot chisel life into his divine image belongs to the 
same category. An unknowable and unrevealable Deity would 
have no scientific or artistic worth, and would quench our 
noblest aspirations. 


I have no sympathy with those philosophers who insist 
that happiness can exist without pain. We might as well 
attempt to conceive of light without darkness. The tenderer 
the love the mother bears for her once darling child, the 
greater the tears she sheds over its grave. He who is not 
acutely pained by the distressing scenes of vice and misery 
which he constantly beholds all around him is dead to all 
pleasurable sensations. The virtue of pleasure consists in 
its freeing us from the pernicious effects of inordinate pains. 
Stupefactive pleasures, the harbingers of pain, are the logical 
necessity of abstract methods of thinking. Would the sum 
of human pleasures have been diminished had voluptuous 
indulgences never existed ? To scientific pleasures there is 
no limit ; they are appropriate at all times and in all places ; 
but those begotten of luxury and indolence have a very 
narrow range. Had soporific pleasures no existence, we could 
have no conceptions of them, and our thoughts and feelings 
would be moulded for the enjoyment of natural pleasures. 
Consider, too, the egoistic nature of sordid indulgences ; for 
the displeasure in foregoing the satiation of our debased 
appetites is stronger than our thoughts of the pain which 
we inflict upon those who are solicitous about our welfare. 
Natural pleasures are bound up with utility. No pleasure 
can be derived from an action which conflicts with our moral 
destiny, so that happiness may thus be brought under mathe- 
matical rules. Happiness is derived from seeing a structure 
perform its characteristic function ; the degree of pain may 
be measured (i) by the neglect of such performance, and 
(2) by the structure performing a false function. The pain 
is in exact ratio to the non-performance, or to the falsity of 
the performance. Utility is also allied with beauty. There 
can be no beauty without utility, and the beauty of an object 
is in direct ratio to its utility. Nothing can be beautiful 
Avhich engenders inordinate pain, and all inutilities are sources 
of pain. Beauty cannot be said to reside in activity or repose. 
When a structure has exercised its function to its fullest capa- 
city without strain, beauty consists in repose ; when the God- 
dess of repose has her due, beauty abides in activity. It is 
beautiful to weep when we behold an attitude of pain ; it is 


beautiful to laugh when we behold actions or objects which 
are suggestive of pleasure. The more we cultivate happiness, 
the keener grows our sensibility to pain. The more we deaden 
our sensibility to pain, the blunter grows our susceptibility 
for happiness. 

The humanitistic conception of truth is admirably defined 
by George Henry Lewes, 1 namely : " Truth is the correspond- 
ence between the order of ideas and the order of phenomena, 
so that the one becomes a reflection of the other the move- 
ment of Thought following the movement of Things." The 
beauty and force of this definition consists in this, that the 
deviation of the movement of the thought from the movement 
of the thing is a measure of man's free-will his powers of 
objectivity. In the abstract method of thinking, an attempt 
is made to force the thing to follow the movement of thought. 
It is important to bear this in mind, because, as I have shown, 
we are governed by abstract methods, and the only recourse 
is to reverse all our activities and habits of thought before a 
solution of the social problem can be expected. In the ulti- 
mate analysis, justice consists in granting to each individual 
in all generations equal opportunities for access to the means 
of subsistence. All other conceptions of justice may be logi- 
cally derived from this truth. Light is truth diffused, the 
access to which each should also have equal opportunities : 
hence the corner-stones of Humanitism are Truth, Justice, 
and Light. Even these abstractions, however, must ultimately 

In speaking of the forces by which we are governed, I have 
suggested that they should be shifted from the abstract to 
the scientific category. As we have seen, there are two sub- 
categories: (i) the material, and (2) the spiritual, If we 
now admit, and act upon the admission, that trade should be 
created for the good of man, and not man for the good of 
trade, we find ourselves in the scientific material category. 
Again, if we admit, and act upon the admission, that heaven 
with its divinities is in the future, and not in the past, we 
find ourselves in the scientific spiritual category. We cannot 
shift the material without the spiritual, or the spiritual with- 
1 History of Philosophy, vol. i., xxxL 


out the material ; otherwise we beget a dualism which must 
end in the most terrible of all human disasters. In the 
scientific category, the Humanitist is quite consistent in as- 
suming the following titles : i. Materialist. 2. Spiritualist. 
3. Individualist. 4. Socialist. 5. Positivist. 6. Agnostic. 
7. Secularist. 8. Rationalist. 9. Utilitarian. 10. Humani- 
tarian, ii. Theist. 12. Christian. This simply proves that 
all dualisms are merely abstract conceptions, which have no 
foundation in nature; but it is necessary to make some 
remarks upon the claims of the Humanitist to be called 
a Christian. His ultimate claim rests upon the assump- 
tion that Christ was good and sane, and therefore also con- 
sistent. Ignore this assumption, and the Humanitist is not 
a Christian. Now, as Christ wrote nothing Himself, and as 
there are conflicting accounts of what He said and did, all the 
contradictions which are inconsistent with goodness and sanity 
must be the work of priests, scribes, or other interpolators. 
The divinity of Christ need not be denied, for His inspiration 
appears to be quite consistent with human aspirations and 
instincts. Christ being a good man, He must have been 
inspired by a good God who could not be so wicked as to 
damn human souls, which are part and parcel of Himself, to 
be eternally lost in a lake of fire. If Satan be responsible for 
this torture, then it was a wicked act for God to create Satan, 
and if He did not create him, he must be a person in the God- 
head, and therefore God is good and bad, and is not omnipo- 
tent. To be a devil, and to create one, are equally iniquitous. 
As Christ could only have preached the goodness of God, the 
priests must have been the fabricators of the Plan of Salvation. 
Some modern theologians attempt to evade the wicked char- 
acter of the Godhead by saying that everlasting fire does not 
mean a fire lasting for ever, according to the modern transla- 
tion of the Greek word which conveyed the terrible idea. If 
this be true, then eternal bliss cannot last for ever, and the 
New Testament cannot be a revelation from God ; for a reve- 
lation must reveal, and cannot therefore confuse. A divine 
revelation confused by priests cannot be an inspiration from an 
omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and a just and holy God. 
Another claim of the Humanitist is, that Christ says Come ; He 


does not say Go. He invited human souls to come to the future, 
not to go to the past. While claiming to be a Christian, the 
Humanitist repudiates priestcraft Christianity, and pleads 
that Christ possessed the true subjective spirit of religion. 

Humanitism is specially to be recommended on the ground 
that it saves alike the unemployed rich and the unemployed 
poor from perdition. Its supreme aim is not to destroy pro- 
perty, but merely lessen pride and folly. A rich man suffers a 
loss of property only when his neighbour gets the benefit ; but 
if the individual loses his surplus property, his pride and folly 
being reduced to the same level, no actual loss can be sus- 
tained ; contrariwise, all is gain. Humanitism does not direct 
its missiles against property, but primarily against pride, 
ignorance, and folly, and against the sovereignty of the Idea. 
We are all the creatures of circumstances, and are therefore 
deserving of compassion. We would all be good if we could ; 
but we are coerced to do those things which are revolting to 
our nature. We are brought up within a narrow compass, 
and our self-preservative instincts being strong, we would 
rather bear those ills we have than fly to others we know not 
of. The greater the future dangers the more tenaciously we 
cling to what we vainly call our own ; and the less able we 
are to obtain a livelihood the more we cling to our property. 
I am therefore convinced that every proposed reform should 
be accompanied by rational methods for carrying it out. All 
healthy changes should be imperceptible. While recognising 
these facts, I present this portion of Humanitism as being the 
plans and specifications ; and as for the executive powers, it is 
my purpose to show, on a future occasion, that such matters do 
not belong to mere men of affairs, but enter into the construc- 
tion of a special science. No single scheme can efficiently carry 
out any great reform ; and I am prepared with a combination 
of schemes, should no flaws be found in my plans and specifi- 
cations, and should a demand arise for their execution. I 
have not lost so much faith in my fellows as to assume that 
they desire the present state of society to continue, providing 
a rational method of escape from existing ills be found, and it 
has therefore been my aim to present as clearly, yet briefh', 
as possible a new condition into which no fair-minded person 


need be afraid or ashamed to enter. Although I have on 
both hemispheres beheld with my own eyes many heart- 
rending scenes of misery, and listened to many a distressful 
tale of woe with my own ears, and although I am not un- 
familiar with painful statistics gathered from other sources, 
yet the violent character of our social, political, and economic 
dualisms is in itself sufficient to convince me that civilised 
society is in a state of anarchy, and that there is no possibility 
of solving the social problem through any one or more of the 
methods which have hitherto been proposed. The entire 
basis of our social forces must be changed. Although my 
arguments may not receive general acceptance, yet they can- 
not fail to show the limited nature of the sphere in which the 
champions of the various schools of sociology are operating. 
I may have been rather polemic in some of my pages, which 
may appear inconsistent with a purely scientific inquiry, but 
I cannot forget my duties and responsibilities as a social 
reformer. My supreme aim, however, has been an inspired 
regard for truth ; and if I have given needless offence, it has 
arisen from the fact that those whom I have criticised appear 
to have acted under indefensible motives. I do not maintain 
that economicism, politics, and religious orthodoxy have been 
barren of results. They have taught us many an invaluable 
lesson, and have been the means of forming a bond, more or 
less friendly, between nations, giving them opportunities for 
becoming more intimately acquainted with each other's lan- 
guage, literature, and laws, which bond is a colossal stride in 
the cause of humanity. The rapid progress which the doc- 
trine of evolution has made amongst the acutest minds in 
France and Germany, as well as amongst those in our own 
country, is another step in the same direction. Science and 
mathematics have been brought into disgrace by the attempts 
made through them to justify abstract theories, and the re- 
action due to this failure must have an important bearing in 
relation to the social problem. Agricultural science has de- 
monstrated that the soil is not an inexhaustible mine, and 
that the enormous waste caused by artificial methods of hus- 
bandry must be checked. There is great scope for develop- 
ment in agriculture, which is the sum of all the sciences, but 


so long as it remains a slavish and degrading occupation, 
abstract pursuits must continue. All the sciences should be 
taught in their relation to agriculture. With reference to the 
political situation in all civilised countries, the potentates, 
whose thrones are kegs of fizzing dynamite, are being trem- 
blingly weighed in the political balance, or are fugitives to 
lands where they can find no security for their bodies or rest 
for their weary souls. There can only be two sides in the 
coming conflict, namely, ancestry against posterity, the former 
being the aggressor, and the weakness of the latter is the 
source of its strength. Each must choose for himself, whether 
it is his duty to take up arms against his children or against 
his ancestors. There is no halting-place between these ex- 
tremes. We must go to futurity or be gathered amongst the 
ashes and shades of our ancestors ; we cannot stand still. 
We may continue the struggle a short time longer, but if \ve 
do, it must end in the fall of our once cherished civilisation. 
I have not entered into my inquiry in the spirit of a national 
destroyer, but rather with a patriotism only shadowed o'er by 
my affection for humanity, and I hope that my effort will be 
criticised with the spirit in which it has been written, and 
with the sense of truth and justice which the subject impera- 
tively demands. 



This book is DUE on the last date stamped below 


Deliver to 


000 527 

m / by W. 


Requester i nformat . on 



"none ; 
Address : 

o - 


A 000 527 936 9 ^